From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8683138010 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:42:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFA9A21C0A3; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BFF21C064 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.155] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CDD533D403 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5048D1E5.4060008@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:40:05 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120901 Thunderbird/15.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [gentoo-portage-dev] About forcing rebuilds of other packages issue References: <1338845178.23212.1.camel@belkin4> <20120906090144.GS74867@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20120906090144.GS74867@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 4e86d7d4-81f3-4874-a6b4-a358d5e2fab8 X-Archives-Hash: 400a63ad67bc2ffa64fef2301e0fbd78 On 09/06/2012 02:01 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > After reading this thread, I have seen numerous occasions where has been > asked what this proposal actually solves. Unless I've accidentially > skipped over it, the answer has yet to be given. It appears to me now > sub-slot is a feature that makes it easy to express a situation that > could be expressed today as well, but requiring more work. As such > "syntactic sugar", it seems not well bounded, allowing possibly for > doing things that result in a big mess (I cannot prove this atm, and > there is no specification afaict.) The sub-slot is needed for those cases where it's just not practical to bump the regular slot. Tiziano Müller (dev-zero) has summarized the possible solutions well [1]: > I see four possibilities: > 1) patch them to version the headers as well and slot them (together with slot operator deps) > 2) ask upstream to properly version the headers alongside with the lib and slot them (together with slot operator deps) > 3) slot them and block old slots in newer versions (together with slot operator deps) > 4) introduce a new EAPI variable which can be incremented whenever an soname changes (needs some more thinking and proper specification, somehow duplicates SLOT) Sub-slot implements #4 (by extending the SLOT variable instead of using a new variable). [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414955#c10 -- Thanks, Zac