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 645E913877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7A90E0AE9; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64624E092F for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (unknown [69.158.169.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A918C33FEF7 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <539C72B1.8070205@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:05:05 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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] Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7b62d787-8705-48ee-bf59-755ac927363b X-Archives-Hash: b88e5fd3b9217c006ae23e99ce3d6c62 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 14/06/14 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Some time ago we've got bug #510780 [1] asking us to bump subslot > on LLVM even though the new version was ABI-compatible with > previous one. It was because it introduced new APIs which > applications could make use of. Since I believe this is a wider > issue, I would like to know the opinion of our community about > this. > > More specifically: do we want subslots to change only when > backwards- incompatible ABI changes are done -- alike SONAME -- or > whenever any ABI change is done? The problem seems a bit complex. > > Considering the libtool versioning, there are two kinds of library > bumps relevant to us: > > 1) when ABI is altered in backwards-compatible way (so old stuff is > not touched), > > 2) when ABI is altered in backwards-incompatible way. > I vote that as primary policy/general practice, it only be bumped for (2) -- the primary purpose of subslot rebuilds is to allow portage to figure out the deptree order when a dependency upgrade is going to break a package that may or may not be emerged later. "break" is the key term here. If users want to re-emerge the rdeps of a package on upgrade they can certainly do so, but I don't see this as something we want to force on everybody just because we can... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlOccrEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBu1AD+LNiTezb0nnGtGoVW4AHjAMk7 sMxoTYTvcYn2MLfYrrAA/iXLTPsTdGUSQcWnq40zz5yK09RljYMlI7f2bk5SlWIt =x/MD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----