On 07/07/2012 11:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> Is it unrealistic to assume that upstream ABI providers will mark
>>> their ABIs by using sonames correctly?
>>>
>>> Maybe that is at least the common case, then ABI_SLOT could be set
>>> automatically.
>>
>> Although we hav
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > Is it unrealistic to assume that upstream ABI providers will mark
> > their ABIs by using sonames correctly?
> >
> > Maybe that is at least the common case, then ABI_SLOT could be set
> > automatically.
>
> Although we have a lot of this information available (which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/07/12 07:29 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI
>>> changes, like the pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase
>>> suggested here:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_b
Zac Medico wrote:
> > I'd suggest a special ebuild phase to check for ABI changes, like
> > the pre_pkg_preinst_abi_check phase suggested here:
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319#c20
>
> I guess, that phase would detect ABI change and package manager
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/06/12 01:58 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 06:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 23/06/12 08:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Ju
On 06/25/2012 06:03 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 23/06/12 08:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
wrote:
> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/06/12 08:42 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
>>> wrote:
A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI
On 06/10/2012 11:18 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
>> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
>>> d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/06/12 06:49 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
>> wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts.
>>> Using the
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 01:25:55PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
> > the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
> > dependency will be expressed
El dom, 10-06-2012 a las 13:25 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
> > the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
> > dependency will be expressed w
On 06/10/2012 05:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
>> dependency will be expressed with an atom such as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/06/12 08:45 AM, Davide Pesavento wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700 Zac Medico
>> wrote:
>>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts.
>>> Using the db
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
>> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
>> dependency will be expressed with an ato
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:55:53 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> A dependency atom will have optional SLOT and ABI_SLOT parts. Using
> the dbus-glib depedency on glib:2 as an example [1], the dbus-glib
> dependency will be expressed with an atom such as dev-libs/glib:2:=
> and the package manager will trans
On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the
>> Council to approve it.
>
> The last feature someone did that way was REQUIRED_USE, and we all know
> how that turned ou
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:31:55 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> We can just write a specification for this one feature, and ask the
> Council to approve it.
The last feature someone did that way was REQUIRED_USE, and we all know
how that turned out...
What you *should* do is get an implementation, then t
El sáb, 09-06-2012 a las 12:46 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:31 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> > On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> > >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >>> El jue,
El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:31 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/07/201
On 06/08/2012 12:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/06/12 03:23 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> It's close enough to ABI_SLOT that it would make more sense just
>> to use ABI_SLOT because it's more flexible.
>
> In that case, I think it's c
El vie, 08-06-2012 a las 12:16 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/07/201
On 06/08/2012 01:38 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:33 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Thu,
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico 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 fro
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:15:28PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:14:03 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > How is the case of something like libpng going to be handled, where we
> > only support one API (and so only one
On 06/07/2012 12:24 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> I would p
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 12:09 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
> >> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:14:03 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> How is the case of something like libpng going to be handled, where we
> only support one API (and so only one SLOT)? Either in the proposed
> ABI_SLOT thing or when using slot operators?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/06/12 03:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200 Pacho Ramos
>> wrote:
I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to
RDEPEND on glib:2
On 06/07/2012 12:00 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
I would prefer, as a workaround, allow reverse deps to RDEPEND on
glib:2.* instead. That way it would cover more cases
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 19:44 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > 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
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:43:54 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > 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=
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 wrote:
> > >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lo
On 06/07/2012 11:13 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:47:19 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
>>> Zac Medico wrote:
Can you explain how Exherbo is handling dbus-glib rebuilds after
glib:2
On 06/07/2012 11:04 AM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
>> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:47:19 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >> Can you explain how Exherbo is handling dbus-glib rebuilds after
> >> glib:2 updates?
> >
> > Badly, most likely.
>
> And, I su
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 wrote:
> >> I can imagine that ABI_SLOT operator deps will be a lot more popular
> >> than SLOT operator deps, since ABI_SLOT operator d
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 20:04 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger escribió:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07.06.2012 19:47, Zac Medico wrote:
> > And, I suspect that they'd be handling with ABI_SLOT operator deps,
> > if they were available.
>
> No, we wouldn't.
>
> Best regards,
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:42:29 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> >> It seems like you're trying to make glib fit your SLOT operator
> >> model, even though it's a natural fit for the ABI_SLOT operator
> >> model.
> >
> > No, I'm trying to strongly encourage people to make proper use of
> > slots to avoid h
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:03:25 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07.06.2012 19:47, Zac Medico wrote:
> And, I suspect that they'd be handling with ABI_SLOT operator deps,
> if they were available.
No, we wouldn't.
Best regards, Wulf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Usin
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
> >>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Well, I
On 06/07/2012 10:40 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico 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 w
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 10:42 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700
> > Zac Medico wrote:
> >>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple
> >>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you r
El jue, 07-06-2012 a las 18:40 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
> Zac Medico 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 al
On 06/06/2012 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Can you explain how Exherbo is handling dbus-glib rebuilds after
>> glib:2 updates?
>
> Badly, most likely.
And, I suspect that they'd be handling with ABI_SLOT operator deps, if
they were
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:32 -0700
Zac Medico 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 bril
On 06/06/2012 10:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>>> You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple
>>> versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really
>>> couldn't do that (and you should think very carefully befor
On 06/07/2012 01:24 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
>>> Pacho Ramos wrote:
Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 14:59 -0700, Brian Harring escribió:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:18:01PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> > > Is there any chance to detect this ZLIB_VERSION problem with
> > > revdep-rebuild (worst case: add a list of possibly br
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:43:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
> > Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
> >> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and lo
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:45:55 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> Can you explain how Exherbo is handling dbus-glib rebuilds after
> glib:2 updates?
Badly, most likely.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:21:40 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> > You'd have a slot per ABI, and be encouraged to allow multiple
> > versions of glib to be installed in parallel. If you really
> > couldn't do that (and you should think very carefully before saying
> > you can't, since this directly affects
On 06/06/2012 12:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
>> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea
>> about what should it do.
>
> There's a big lea
On 06/06/2012 10:19 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:32:08 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still
>>> didn't fully know what the problem was.
>>
>> Well, could you please let me know how to handle some issues already
>> men
On 06/06/2012 10:16 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> That looks nice, only two notes:
>> - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and
>> ABI_SLOT, for example:
>> * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2
>> * if glib
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 20:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
> > be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea
> > about what should it do.
>
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:16:05 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Well, I think reading this thread is more or less clear what it would
> be supposed to do, also Zac suggested it and looks to have an idea
> about what should it do.
There's a big leap from "more or less clear" and "an idea" to the kind
of k
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 19:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:30:52 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would
> > > > we need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to
> > > > glib:2.32? :O
> > >
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:30:52 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > Also, how could this be handled in dbus-glib side? I mean, would
> > > we need to update dbus-glib update from RDEPENDing on glib:2.30 to
> > > glib:2.32? :O
> >
> > Noo. You'd use := dependencies, possibly with a >= constraint.
>
>
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 19:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Probably other gnome team could reply this better than me, but I don't
> > think slotting every glib-2 due ABI changes deserves the huge effort.
>
> Think of the users.
I
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:02:24 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Probably other gnome team could reply this better than me, but I don't
> think slotting every glib-2 due ABI changes deserves the huge effort.
Think of the users.
> Also, we want people to rebuild them against, for example, glib-2.32
> ABI,
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 18:19 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:32:08 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still
> > > didn't fully know what the problem was.
> >
> > Well, could you please let me know how to handle so
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 18:16 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > That looks nice, only two notes:
> > - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and
> > ABI_SLOT, for example:
> > * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:32:08 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still
> > didn't fully know what the problem was.
>
> Well, could you please let me know how to handle some issues already
> mentioned? For example:
> - Rebuild dbus-glib and gobjec
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:48:26 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> That looks nice, only two notes:
> - Looks like would be more sense on distinguish between "SLOT" and
> ABI_SLOT, for example:
> * dbus-glib would rdepend on glib:2
> * if glib:2 abi changes, we would pull a ABI_SLOT="2.32"
> insi
On 06/06/2012 02:48 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 02:17 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
very cl
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 02:17 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
> >> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it
On 06/06/2012 02:10 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 01:54 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
>> Is there any chance to detec
On 06/06/2012 01:28 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
>> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
>> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a se
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 01:54 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/06/2012 01:46 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 19:18 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> >> On 06/05/2012 05:51 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
> >>> Is there any chance to
El mié, 06-06-2012 a las 06:33 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:31:01 +0200
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to
> > implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working).
>
> We do? Please tell us. I
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 16:07 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
> >> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild
> >> the dependent packages.
> >>
> >> We can have a
On 06/05/2012 10:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
>> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
>> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a s
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:31:01 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> We all know what would be the "ideal solution", the problem is how to
> implement it (and how many years we need to wait to get it working).
We do? Please tell us. I was under the impression that we still didn't
fully know what the problem w
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:40 -0700
Zac Medico wrote:
> The "SLOT operator" dependencies that Ciaran has been advocating are
> very close to a good solution. However, if we want it to work with
> unslotted packages, then we need to introduce a separate ABI_SLOT
> variable as discussed here:
>
>
On 06/05/2012 06:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
>> The ideal solution is for the Ebuild to instruct the PMS to rebuild
>> the dependent packages.
>>
>> We can have a variable called REBUILD. All packages that would need to
>> be rebuilt
El mar, 05-06-2012 a las 08:44 -0400, Aaron W. Swenson escribió:
[...]
> "There's never anything important in all that text." - Anonymous
> Gentoo User
>
> We've already determined that the users don't read the output. This is
> a known fact. Something I repeat in #gentoo more often than I care to
On 06/04/2012 02:29 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> - Looks like there is no consensus about what to do and, then, this
> could probably be implemented on eapi... 7? While former could probably
> be implemented much sooner (probably even in eapi5)
Ciaran has been advocating "SLOT operator" dependencies
Hello, will send this to gentoo-dev mailing list per Zac's suggestion ;):
Probably Zac already remembers my suggestion of:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413619
Sorry for insisting a bit on it but this issue bites me periodically.
Months ago, I was able to administrate myself some of my
81 matches
Mail list logo
