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 478E8138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BDC9521C028 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767D421C095 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5DB333D82B for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 22:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <509055EC.6020801@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:34:20 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121022 Thunderbird/16.0.1 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> <509050A1.8050508@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <509050A1.8050508@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 435fc1b6-dc80-420f-836b-b60ead36c862 X-Archives-Hash: 2fe69dfbb4dcfad3a11061a33387f009 On 10/30/2012 03:11 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > 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. It should not be an issue since portage-2.1.10.21, which had the --complete-graph-if-new-ver enabled by default: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=2733ea17d8e25db8dd369e8890337ddb553e2509 -- Thanks, Zac