Sent from an iPhone, sorry for the HTML... > On Sep 19, 2015, at 7:30 AM, Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:25:40 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:08:21 +0200 >> Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On the other hand, if we start always setting the available slots >>> that we know to work, we can avoid this issue, and this is also >>> completely future proof becase I don't think we can assume that >>> package B will always work with the latest available SLOT package A >>> can have in the future. Then, applying the same policy of we trying >>> to set the versions in dependencies to the versions we know are >>> compatible, we should do the same with the slot. >> >> You know, there's this thing called a :* slot dependency... >> Originally, the intent was that any dependency which might match more >> than one slot would explicitly use an operator, and that repoman >> would enforce it. > > repoman warns when it *does* match more than one slot; maybe it should > warn when it *might* ? >
And how is repo man supposed to know that???? :) I'm having a but of difficulty understanding exactly what the request is in this thread. Rdeps of a package that is slotted (isn't SLOT=0) absolutely needs to specify slot or a :* operator. But for all the packages that are SLOT=0, I do not think we should be specifying slot on all the rdeps just because some day we might add a new slot. Especially since we might need to change both the old and new SLOT= when we do this. And I also see it perfectly acceptable to bump all rdeps when this needs to occur. Although, if we fix "slot move" then this may be less necessary. Now, adding a ":=" slot operator to rdeps when the package still just has a simple/single slot does seem fine to me and makes sense for future proofing. I know some think this isn't a good idea as well though.
