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 0529B13827E for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F678E0AEF; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BF06E0AD8 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:55:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6725F33F432 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:55:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52A5076E.4070109@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:34 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 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] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? References: <20131208175438.100112a0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20131208175438.100112a0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 62b8cc97-b667-4522-b4b4-0cee5e4ca470 X-Archives-Hash: 24a5b49f0904e2800a375f06a7729e75 On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the > default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to > fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1] Pff. Lazy. > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can > we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do more work. > If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to change > the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package managers. > > Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to apply. > While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would changing > the default from :* to :0 break? > > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no > SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific > SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the amount of > commits needed here is low. And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages need to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just to hide your own laziness. > Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do > with packages were the highest available version does not belong to > SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look > closer into how we can alleviate this result. Yup, bad idea. 500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly?