On 06/06/2012 02:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 01:54 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: >>>>> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote: >>>>>> Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with >>>>>> revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly broken >>>>>> packages with tests)? >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like >>>>> the pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here: >>>>> >>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20 >>>> >>>> I guess, that phase would detect ABI change and package manager >>>> would know how to handle it by itself? > > Yeah, it would be like a warning system, do detect cases when the > SLOT/ABI_SLOT were not bumped when they should have been. The idea is > that the developer who's doing the version bump will see the warning > and bump the SLOT/ABI_SLOT before committing the ebuild. >> >> > > And once we bump SLOT/ABI_SLOT, package manager would know about how to > handle that situation and rebuild needed stuff?
Right, as long as the reverse dependencies use the := "SLOT operator" like they're supposed to. That's how they let the package manager know that they'll need to be rebuilt when the ABI changes. > If we use SLOT only, I guess we would need to allow (or make more > common) pulling multiple slot but all of them mutually exclusive no? Yeah, blockers are already used like this sometimes, like for google-chrome which has mutually exclusive stable, beta, and unstable SLOTs. > I > have no problem with that of course, but I thought it wasn't "desired" > in general. Well, we can always introduce a separate ABI_SLOT variable in a later EAPI, if we want. -- Thanks, Zac
