El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió: > >> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild > >> the dependent packages. > >> > >> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to > >> be rebuilt can be listed in it. Only those packages that are installed > >> would be built. The actual list of the packages to be rebuilt would be > >> determined at dependency checking time. That way, the user can approve > >> the rebuild of the packages. > > > > We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to > > implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working). > > This REBUILD variable is the first idea that pops into the head of > anyone who's never worked on a dependency resolver before. It's > backwards because it requires a package to have knowledge of *all* of > its reverse dependencies, and it should not need to know about *any* of > them. > > The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are > very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with > unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT > variable as discussed here: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c18 > > It's really no more difficult to do than "SLOT operator" dependencies, > it's more flexible, and we can do it in EAPI 5.
In that case, I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that approach (it sound even better :)). Is there any place where I could get a bit more documentation about how this "SLOT operator" way would work? For example, how would work for rebuilding x11 drivers after updating xorg or rebuilding gobject-introspection after major glib update... Thanks a lot for the info :)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
