El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 20:16 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: > 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
Well, per: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9f7729c047300e1924ad768a49c660e12c2f906;hp=b7750e67b4772c1064543defb7df6a556f09807b looks like "*" usage for SLOTs would be allowed :), or I am misinterpreting it?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
