El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 11:03 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular > >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator deps will accommodate > >> the common practice of allowing ABI changes within a particular SLOT. > > > > You're missing out on a brilliant opportunity to encourage developers > > put in a bit more work to save users a huge amount of pain here. > > What about cases like the dbus-glib and glib:2 dependency, where it's > just too much trouble to use SLOT operator deps? Wouldn't it be better > to have a little flexibility, so that we can accommodate more packages? > > As a workaround for SLOT operator deps, I suppose that glib:1 could be > split into a separate glib-legacy package, in order to facilitate the > use of SLOT operator dependencies in dbus-glib. That way, it would be > easy to match glib-2.x and not have to worry about trying not to match > glib-1.x.
I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases when more than two slots are available
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
