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 5D2F6138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D160B21C028 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:03:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49E821C107 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (e178071245.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.71.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4B7233D86A for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <509050A1.8050508@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:11:45 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121024 Firefox/16.0 SeaMonkey/2.13.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 13-11-2012 References: <20121030150024.GU85698@gentoo.org> <50904F66.8070808@gentoo.org> <20121030220932.5cfdb34d@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121030220932.5cfdb34d@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 628c7dfc-0076-4cc0-91dc-64cb9c823250 X-Archives-Hash: 20c3152242b6baf23f603e41fca51153 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:06:30 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> The reason why I think that < dependencies are not bad is that >> existing users of such packages will typically simply miss out >> on upgrades. > > No, what will happen is that Portage will perform the upgrades > anyway and break things, since it doesn't check dependencies of > installed packages that aren't part of the resolution. Do you have a test case for this? I haven't observed this in recent times. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlCQUKEACgkQ+gvH2voEPRCa7ACeJoJU+OVcYlsqHNbdlZzWj6KW vfsAn0fDzGzs/PSCZ74jgijdOezJ/UZg =pkHx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----