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 082CA13879F for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 19EA321C0E0; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:12 +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 801A621C00E for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8966133DBDD for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.546, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4wkKpW8Bx_Bn for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C91A33DC27 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U0x1g-000340-Pa for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:30:12 +0100 Received: from wireless-86-50-146-1.open.aalto.fi ([86.50.146.1]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:30:12 +0100 Received: from nunojsilva by wireless-86-50-146-1.open.aalto.fi with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:30:12 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: (Nuno Silva) Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Binary chrome - is it safe in terms of dependencies? Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:30:03 +0200 Message-ID: <878v79gvsk.fsf@ist.utl.pt> References: <20130130180924.GA16018@dethkomp> <87fw1hh7x1.fsf@ist.utl.pt> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: wireless-86-50-146-1.open.aalto.fi User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tzmGwXPA5Mac1BPlQVxsoZa7nXY= X-Archives-Salt: 70e5beb1-a988-4080-b548-c9124b836b6b X-Archives-Hash: 0250ea1dc40f3be149ee6a7e3afafee2 On 2013-01-31, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: >On Jan 31, 2013 5:38 PM, "Nuno Silva" wrote: > >>> Also, I suppose that, if there were library incompatibilities, the >>> package would never go stable, or would at least, like Yohan said, lead >>> to a block/version dependency. > > Well, many times you can't really anticipate everything. > > I had my libreoffice-bin pdf import broken for two months because some > shared library had got upgraded against which it wasn't linked. I guess that sometimes this kind of issues may be harder to spot, or require harder fixes (see for example the current state of LISP where some packages require ASDF 2 but the stable one is ASDF 1, AFAIK the stabilization of ASDF 2 is pending because some eclasses have to be changed), but even then I'd suppose this is what the unstable arches are for. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/