From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924D813877A for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32D03E09C2; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57779E0866 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62AC3340358 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53E5302E.7050401@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:16:46 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge References: <53e4ccbd.c2b4700a.3bec.2414@mx.google.com> <20140808193433.25388.qmail@stuge.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b5b9efa5-23d5-41ad-a61d-9b0d3f0e2cd0 X-Archives-Hash: b8ed80536eea87cb27d4854367cf01d3 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/08/14 03:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 9 August 2014 07:34, Peter Stuge > wrote: > > ebuilds often (for me) have artificial dependencies, when the > actual version required is too old to be in the tree, but maybe not > too old to be installed on an existing system. > > > > The inverse is also true, sometimes you see people go: > > "Well, upstream requires Foo 1.5 at least, but we have 2.0 as the > oldest in tree, so we can just say dev-whatever/Foo and be done > with it" > > Which turns out to be horribly wrong if somebody still has Foo 1.4 > installed, for whatever reason. > > And this is just one reason why being excessively lazy about what > you upgrade could be secretly detrimental. > Also very true. I don't think we have any sort of tree-wide policy on this either, do we? Although I believe common sense says it's a good idea (and i hope most devs do this) to put a minver on a dependency atom if there was any ebuild with an older version in the tree within the last year. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPlMC4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDUrgD+OiVN6HQKxNAOusj8PYI1O421 Dq2ihfhuQMz2HszG9DoBAJdTZJ9pRM6cFbkN+tcwFc/CAZUiWBe9MsSfoLkqho/C =T+NJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----