On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tiziano Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > roughly 90% packages depending on one of: > > sys-libs/db
Why the hell does this have so many slots in-tree? I am unaware of the reasons for it. Horribly changed API every release? How does every other distro handle sys-libs/db ? > dev-libs/boost Has one unmasked slot in-tree > dev-lang/python > So, wait, you want to depend on specific slots of python and keep them around, and manage all their related bugs? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what python upstream suggests, and *ALL* distros do? > Besides: We wouldn't need the need_python_rebuild anymore, users could > safely uninstall old sys-libs/db versions, old dev-libs/boost versions @preserved-libs. More generic, a low-level catch-all for library breakages, and more convenient for users (rebuild as and when possible, not *right now* lest everything break). > and the list of packages to reinstall in python-updater boils down to > what "paludis -u dev-lang/python:2.4" spits out as reverse-dependencies > (or the corresponding portage command). You mean emerge -C dev-lang/python:2.4 ? That'll say "bai bai python". In any case, what is wrong with python_need_rebuild ? Slot operators need changes to the ebuilds, so does python_need_rebuild. Slot operators need an EAPI bump for the ebuild, python_need_rebuild doesn't. So, isn't python_need_rebuild superior.. ? -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
