On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 19:58:47 +0100
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Honestly, setting up a tracker and blocking it with bugs about
> > packages which someones-sub-SLOT-checking-script has vetted to be
> > involved could be done in less than a day (for the hundred or so
> > packages that depend on dev-libs/libgcrypt). It doesn't need some
> > QA team to study in depth -- it needs a couple of volunteers to do
> > the checks and file the bug reports.
>
> I'm not talking about libgcrypt. Those dependencies were 'mostly
> fixed' already and no sane person will revbump every single package
> just to make sure that everything will go right. Especially when
> Council banned a few EAPIs and the revbump would have to be connected
> with EAPI bump... and that would really make it all so happy and
> awesome.
The point would be to add the sub-SLOT token to *DEPEND at a revision
bump or version bump. With a blocking bug for each affected package,
and assuming maintainers check for open bug reports when they bump (as
they already should), you would effectively make sure they *should* have
known about adding the sub-SLOT changes.
With only some helpful messages and friendly reminders on a general
mailing list, you don't achieve the same effect. So again, if you or
anyone else plans on giving a new library the same treatment, then get
some people involved in filing the bug reports, so they get fixed within
a good timeframe. We're still talking weeks to months to years for some
libraries and their reverse dependencies, but at least we'd be on our
way.
jer
