On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700 > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote: >>> I'm perfectly fine w/ ABI_SLOT and SLOT (I proposed a similar thing >>> in '06/'07); I'd however suggest ensuring there is some buy in from >>> devs on that one since that was the main argument against it in the >>> past. >> >> 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. > > What for? So we won't ever get rid of revdep-rebuild resp. > @preserved-libs? Except for the ranged dep problem I don't see any > additional benefit but potential drawbacks. Please correct me where I'm > wrong.
ABI_SLOT operator deps *do* allow us to get rid of revdep-rebuild, since they are usable in cases like the dbus-glib/glib:2 dependency, where SLOT operator deps are unmanageable. -- Thanks, Zac
