Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:48:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge by Peter Stuge
2 Hash: SHA256
4 On 08/08/14 03:34 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
5 > Kent Fredric wrote:
6 >> dependencies are forward specifications from upstream telling us
7 >> what their software needs to function properly.
8 >
9 > Unfortunately that's not the full story. :\
10 >
11 > ebuilds often (for me) have artificial dependencies, when the
12 > actual version required is too old to be in the tree, but maybe not
13 > too old to be installed on an existing system.
14 >
15 > I think it's bad policy to lie about dependencies in ebuilds for
16 > the sole reason of only ever depending on versions which actually
17 > exist in the same snapshot. It's a too simplistic model of
18 > reality.
19 >
21 For the most part I don't think that happens very often; usually if
22 all stable versions of a dependency can satisfy a package's needs then
23 there isn't any minimum version specification (or the minimum version
24 specification hasn't actually been updated in an ebuild's *DEPEND,
25 despite the older versions having been removed).
27 The main exception to this is the work done related to gx86-multilib
28 (as for obvious reasons the multilib ebuilds are needed to supply
29 multilib dependencies), and the refactoring that mgorny did a few
30 weeks back to fix the EAPI<5 USE_EXPAND+IUSE_IMPLICIT undefined
31 behaviour issue.
33 That said, even if dependency atoms allow the older, no-longer-in-tree
34 versions to satisfy a package's needs, as I said earlier I don't think
35 any dev has the time and resources to test against anything older than
36 latest-stable, and definitely not anything that's no longer in the tree.
40 Version: GnuPG v2
42 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPlKW0ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDAewD/ebk6WQa4pA4VJQkpiXf2Ch/R
43 uGz0HRy6/Y17eSxDL3wA/2gD8ciNsVWkIV6/kLGwwVXGItLL07A3OXITGLE1U8+N
44 =EBWi
45 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----