On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:16:34 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 15:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:48:20 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Regarding the comparison with using only SLOT, the most clear > > > example of how that solution was a bit worse was that glib vs > > > dbus-glib/gobject-introspection handling: > > > - Using only SLOT with := would end up with we needing to update > > > ebuilds for packages depending on glib on each SLOT bump, that is > > > completely inviable. > > > > What about if ranged dependencies existed? > > I think this was already discussed in the same thread, but maybe we > are thinking in different things, could you please explain me a bit > more what do you mean by "ranged dependencies"? (if it would include > an example, even better :))
Being able to say something like >=2&<3. > I can try to check it if no maintainer shows more packages > showing this stable API unstable ABIs issues Please do. This is a fairly important point: if the number of affected packages is small, there's no point in introducing sub-slots. > > You're misunderstanding the point of the * there. The * has nothing > > to do with wildcarding. > > Probably, what is "*" sense in this context? I was thinking more on a > bash context when I would use "*" to fit any 2.x case It means "and the slot can be switched at runtime, without causing breakage". Thus it's only meaningful on dependencies that are both build- and run-. The :*/:= feature was designed to solve one specific problem: if a user has foo installed, and foo deps upon bar, and bar:1 is installed, and the user wants to install bar:2 and then uninstall bar:1, will foo break? :* means no, := means yes. > Also, maybe you could talk with other exherbo maintainers as I am sure > they have also experienced this kind of problem (packages needing to > be rebuilt after update of other one), maybe they could join forces > with us to try to reach an exact description of the problem and a > solution :/ I'm pretty sure the route Exherbo is going to take with this is very different, and will involve souped-up USE flags that allow "parts" of a package (such as its libraries) to be kept around, possibly together with a special form of blocker that acts only upon installed packages, with a strict post ordering. It's not going to involve sub-slots, in any case. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
