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 8C25A13877A for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA2D7E0AEC; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:26 +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 082E6E0ACB for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2337633F64F for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.942 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.289, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27zu2s5J0TaZ for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6892033F128 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WvqX1-0001U3-TG for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:10:15 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-144-136.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.144.136]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:10:15 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-144-136.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:10:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Subslots: should they be bumped like SONAME or on any ABI changes? Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:10:02 +1000 Message-ID: References: <20140614164151.45afb5ca@pomiot.lan> <539C72B1.8070205@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-144-136.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 In-Reply-To: <539C72B1.8070205@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 991300a1-dab1-4dd8-b59d-f7597d443a68 X-Archives-Hash: a47cfb34f2c76f71ebe4f92c75d2afd1 On 06/15/2014 02:05 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > 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... I agree 100%.