From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-67172-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 41A1113877A
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:14:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16D27E094B;
Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:14:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f182.google.com (mail-vc0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E7FCE0844
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:14:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hy4so9458283vcb.27
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=P62Ytb+PrKj3qjsOV/XsU4Z/3foh7DCOdCxA3ZoXdNU=;
b=vPehRvUQuYeDgw9GpUoMU8nSxJ1YiDmUXlHxJbMojD9pXhEsK5LOmNiTX/7DA74oZq
Vn/nUGcUEIVy4qEpnxSywXmxYQ0SKVPrkhAEUGej7LEfrqPP1zXJrFpPYUBCRgJ6M5N2
+jWSKdlaQL0s7lYWFKJUw011QqtRBP6OipWQsE2BTG0LgMKy/FnkXgGca8yxE/p/DZYu
nQVIW07/aDUzbfy4w+I9mfma7MkYUTfGMcpq4jyKPn3KZ18DUXlp5Ye9uY02nvrzgvfI
7X/30MGdiGCKmUQybeviTYnnPdHzFfyW+3ZbpwQWqJJXpUMTc69qePFMMndu8GMw8zbD
soqA==
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
X-Received: by 10.52.9.35 with SMTP id w3mr9274740vda.12.1407550444250; Fri,
08 Aug 2014 19:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 19:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53E5302E.7050401@gentoo.org>
References: <53e4ccbd.c2b4700a.3bec.2414@mx.google.com>
<CAATnKFBF5g0rGoRfMgzkNA0=AV9a3VShwm8F70XzN-QZwc2=qg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140808193433.25388.qmail@stuge.se>
<CAATnKFBGbxvee+ERoZ61f0njd7AJ1PLzv9p_v2ET9h7TA-124w@mail.gmail.com>
<53E5302E.7050401@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 22:14:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Cy94eFnHI_bCqreOnQoQC1sbZFY
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=EhSOCkQ1vKx8_O_jW9bDGpUX6UGNypkmwmoZayi9-=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 4fe2c6df-0bcd-4f6b-96b1-a989de7068dd
X-Archives-Hash: 47f961e99364daf32d09d09c7e2348f4
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
There is no reason not to specify a version constraint if you're aware of it.
However, I wouldn't expect devs to go digging around in cvs for
year-old package versions to test against them. If upstream happens
to say it requires foo-1.5, by all means just take their word for it
and list it, but more often than not they don't bother to test old
versions either or note when the APIs they use were introduced.
Rich