On 02/06/15 21:38, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 02 Jun 2015 20:47, Michael Palimaka wrote: >> On 02/06/15 17:04, Michał Górny wrote: >>> Dnia 2015-06-02, o godz. 03:58:35 >>> "Michael Sterrett (mr_bones_)" <mr_bon...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >>>> -DEPEND="readline? ( sys-libs/readline ) >>>> +DEPEND="readline? ( sys-libs/readline:0 ) >>> >>> This should be actually := (or :0=) for both deps since gnugo links to >>> them. This also applies to your remaining 'warning silencing' commits. >> >> Why? Blindly adding the subslot dep is a bad idea. > > in this particular case, the subslot usage is what we want since we're > compiling+linking against it. using readline:0 vs readline is still an > improvement though. > > we also want a subslot on ncurses since we compile+link against it. > > i think it's pretty uncommon to use readline in a package and not want a > subslot. your package would have to be doing something uncommon like > dlopening it since the only thing readline provides is a library ... > -mike >
Neither readline nor ncurses define an explicit subslot, so I don't know what their future meaning might be. While this is not likely to ever present a problem for ncurses or readline, the trend of blindly adding := to all dependencies without knowing what it actually means is concerning. It would be nice to have some information first, for example: * readline subslot will be bumped when libreadline breaks, most packages want the operator * poppler has some libraries with stable interfaces, only use the operator if you link against unstable libpoppler (not libpoppler-qt4) * libfoo has an additional private, unstable api used only by specific packages - don't use the operator unless you know what you're doing
