[gentoo-dev] Re: Repoman check and QA policy for slot deps/operator

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

Michał Górny posted on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 11:24:43 +0200 as excerpted:

> With the new policy, the simple form of dependencies:
> 
>   dev-libs/foo
> 
> would be only allowed if dev-libs/foo has only one slot.
> 
> If the atom matches more than one slot of a package, one of the
> following forms would need to be used:
> 
> 1. dev-libs/bar:* -- if any version of bar is acceptable,
> and you can replace bar:1 with bar:2 without rebuilding,
> 
> 2. dev-libs/bar:= -- if any version of bar is acceptable,
> and you need to rebuild bar when changing slots (and subslots),
> 
> 3. dev-libs/bar:slot -- if a single slot of bar is acceptable, and you
> can change subslots without rebuilding,
> 
> 4. dev-libs/bar:slot= -- if a single slot of bar is acceptable,
> and you need subslot rebuilds,
> 
> 5. dev-libs/bar:slot/subslot -- if a single subslot of bar is
> acceptable, useful mostly for binary packages and pass-through virtuals.

I'm admittedly operating a bit out of my league here so feel free to 
ignore this if it's simply noise, but in the interest of a clearer policy 
I'll take the risk of being stupid...

Perhaps this can't happen in practice, but there's an obviously missing 
permutation that for completeness (and to avoid questions like this), 
probably should have been covered with a notation such as <can't happen>, 
or perhaps <can happen but not covered, use the stricter #2 form>:

6. dev-libs/bar<what?> -- if any version of bar is acceptable, and you 
need to rebuild bar only when changing slots (but not subslots).

Can it happen?  Covered if so?

Tho you did switch from dev-libs/foo in the initial statement to
dev-libs/bar in the list of permutations.  Normally, I take that to imply 
some relationship between foo and bar, thus the need for two labels 
instead of reusing the first, but if there is such a relationship here I 
don't see it.  I am certainly confused but is it because there such a 
relationship that I'm simply not seeing (that possibly eliminates my 
sixth permutation), or did you "switch horses in mid-stream", as the 
saying goes?

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman