[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Replacing binary-only SLOTs with separate packages
From:       Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2019-01-21 14:14:14
Message-ID: 20190121141414.GB9943 () schiffbauer ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


* Michał Górny schrieb am 19.01.19 um 17:25 Uhr:
> On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 17:37 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > I do not like the idea. Slots are very elegant and effective
> > mechanism and is one of the points where Gentoo outruns other
> > distributions. Proposed approach with compat packages will
> > effectively disable slots for most cases.
> 
> You haven't brought a single argument as to how slots are better than
> compat packages.  In fact, it's not even clear if you're talking about
> the same use of slots that I am.

One was, that you have one package (ebuild directory) for each piece of 
software. Unlike other distributions which have lots of different 
packages all for the same source an many cases.

So I'd agree that its the more gentooish way to have it all in one 
ebuild directory.

That having said I agree that current use of compat slots might be 
somewhat confusing even to developers.

So why not improve usability here?

I think it would increase the understanding of compat slots if we
changed the naming of thoss slots.

How about this:

dev-libs/openssl
     (0.9.8-compat) 0.9.8u 0.9.8v 0.9.8w 0.9.8x ~0.9.8y 0.9.8z_p8-r1
     (0)            1.0.0h 1.0.0i […] [M]~1.1.1a [M]~1.1.1a-r1
     (1.0.0-compat) ~1.0.2q-r200


I can imagine that this might improve the situation a lot.

Of cource thet woult still be the job to fix ebuilds where dependencies
are wrong.

-Marc

-- 
0xCA3E7BF67F979BE5 - F7FB 78F7 7CC3 79F6 DF07
                     6E9E CA3E 7BF6 7F97 9BE5

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]