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 0317413827E for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:39:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B244AE09EF; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com (mail-ve0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8997E087D for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 19:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so2864043veb.2 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:39:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=98hUeCFFmdxbXcFPz2lz4rwuX7GGP1XOXbIiJAqGvlc=; b=MBDdsoXBpIqpxhP5tvtBPcQaDAZsynRzPY32IcYAnMp0KkkkGe227OSZC0UrKAFvbS 8QFQolMxAy9tdpBpam+ox99R4TKgxjfxkHI4Y3N3ZImNaawBcDtd+J3f3V/mkbpNmYot 2ru2gJoqBVAnQX2UGBd+iMD/TnZ+2BrGvIMIOYku8d4uktuNbklmXVNhnJw5tld2WU41 h6xazPat+HsdV7DaEBJ8Vr3uM371whMH5MhGq3GNiC+nshVkNWZnLzclUrC5gdySCSaD HSDb534pgAyv8UGn/ti292RwnN91DYoLmD7ZdmT0H2d8A+7s9yloOR1xy5YpXB1m/f1P 1uWw== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.155.162 with SMTP id vx2mr54670veb.46.1386531579129; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:39:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.112.99 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:39:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21156.50471.613516.395616@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20131208175612.2b8c7e38@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <201312081819.40449.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <21156.50471.613516.395616@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 14:39:39 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2UUG-ZQsbJewcdbb0uOHUUiJMTw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 92a34d0f-00cd-4bc9-ace2-2666feea3ea2 X-Archives-Hash: 454ab13b6fd965f8ad71b58f9d10f1b3 On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > PMS just provides a mechanism, but doesn't prefer one SLOT value over > another. Such a change would introduce policy into PMS which is not > the right way to go. Sure it does - it defaults to :* when :* was never specified. I don't see how defaulting to :0= is a "policy" any more than :* is. > > If a dependency on a specific SLOT value is needed then it should be > explicitly specified in the ebuild. Honestly, I think this is kind of like saying that garbage collection is useless because programmers should just correctly free anything they create exactly once. If maintainers were generally giving careful thought to slots in dependencies then we wouldn't have packages that stick the slot in the package name instead. Sure, we can just ban packages like these and force everybody to fix all the breakage that results (which in theory should never have existed), but it seems better to me to try to make the best default the default. I guess we could just ban any non-explicit slot version dependency (ie 90% of our current dependency atoms are now invalid), but that doesn't really seems a bit like programming in Ada. :) Rich