On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200 >>>>> Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it >>>>>> would be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have >>>>>> an idea about what should it do. >>>>> >>>>> There's a big leap from "more or less clear" and "an idea" to the >>>>> kind of knowledge we want to have. Think REQUIRED_USE for how >>>>> this can go wrong... >>>>> >>>>> If you think ABI_SLOT is essential, why not try implementing it >>>>> and trying it out in a large number of packages, and reporting >>>>> your results? >>>> >>>> It's pretty close to the SLOT operator model, and it seems like it >>>> should work fine. We can deploy EAPI 5_pre1 with ABI_SLOT support, >>>> and test it in an overlay before we include it in the final EAPI 5. >>> >>> I'd prefer you nailing down the details a bit more before slipping >>> it into an EAPI called "5_pre1"; aside from usual complaints, >>> frankly I'd rather not have to figure out the design of it via >>> raiding the patches out of portage history ;) >> >> Ciaran already has SLOT operators in his eapi-5 branch of PMS. Maybe >> we can convince him to change it to ABI_SLOT operators. >> > > Whether we can convince Ciaran to change the wording of a feature in a > draft document is utterly irrelevant. > > SLOT operator deps solve a large class of issues and wont get in the > way of solving the ranged dep problem in a later step, be it ABI_SLOT > or something more generic. > > I'm all for getting SLOT operators into EAPI-5 as actually already > intended for earlier EAPIs. EAPI 5 was supposed to be a quick EAPI so > don't let us delay the whole thing because of that.
Delay doesn't concern be so much. If SLOT operator deps are the best that we can all agree on for now though, then I can accept that. -- Thanks, Zac
