From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63417-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B14A138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Nov 2013 15:49:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15B7BE099B;
	Wed,  6 Nov 2013 15:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A3AE08A6
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Nov 2013 15:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.16.42.226] (134.117.39.62.rev.sfr.net [62.39.117.134])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: aballier)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5BC033EE1E
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  6 Nov 2013 15:48:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1383752934.23332.4.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on
 dependencies
From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100
In-Reply-To: <527A5D22.10009@gentoo.org>
References: <527A5D22.10009@gentoo.org>
Organization: Gentoo
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 2f48fa42-f18e-447a-9041-5b57e81eb82c
X-Archives-Hash: 07a65599d550e08db37be11be2731daa

On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there are
> no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for a package, that
> package doesn't need to have a minimum version on the dependency atom.
>  As such, issues similar to this are probably lying in wait all other
> the place in the tree.

this is a common misconception: ebuilds must have min. deps matching
their requirements (exactly because of this problem)

it can be fixed on the user side by 'emerge -uDN world' meanwhile but
this doesn't mean the ebuild doesn't have a bug, even if minor

Alexis.