On Monday 26 December 2005 21:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > If they're purely in DEPEND, that one isn't even an incompatability.
Right. But it's not that unlikely to see such a corner case sooner or later and it would be good if Portage catches it, instead spitting out a weird message, leaving the root of the issue in the dark. Should be also simple to write a test case. > Well, any library that changes ABI should use a different SLOT for each > revision. So SLOT depends should be able to replace the need for = and > ~ and < and <= dependencies entirely. Which is a good thing, since > those atoms make dependency resolution a general-case unsolvable > problem. The problem is not the SLOT change, but to build "foo" depending on "bar" against KDE X, while bar is built against KDE Y. "foo" and "bar" support all slotted KDE versions, but they need to be build against the same one. You simply cannot express this via slot dependencies, so this feature is useless for KDE packages. > The existing syntax is just as extensible. Up the EABI revision, and > start adding new syntax as needed. EAPI has nothing to do with the consistency of the syntax. Getting it once right, is what you usually call for. I prefer clean data structures. Carsten
pgpuUpWXh9dlB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
