| 1 |
Jörg Schaible posted on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:15:39 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> can somebody tell my, since when existing (and installed) ebuilds |
| 4 |
> suddenly change without at least increasing the version number? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That has always been the case. Existing ebuilds aren't always bumped for |
| 8 |
changes, only if the changes are seen to be installation significant. In |
| 9 |
particular, dependencies generated in eclasses can change, thus changing |
| 10 |
dependencies for the potentially many installed packages inheriting those |
| 11 |
eclasses. It's thus possible to correct minor problems without forcing a |
| 12 |
reinstall. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Tho that also means it's possible to screw things up, and occasionally |
| 15 |
that does happen. I personally run --update --deep with all my updates |
| 16 |
here, and run ~arch (with gentoo/kde overlay live-kde) as well, and |
| 17 |
believe that spares me some big forced-upgrade jumps since I tend to be |
| 18 |
well ahead of the minimum version numbers and older, less current testing |
| 19 |
ebuilds, but I do think it makes a difference. Additionally, mostly |
| 20 |
stable systems with a few ~arch keyworded packages is a known low-testing |
| 21 |
and not always anticipated corner-case. All-stable and all-~arch systems |
| 22 |
are better tested and supported. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Without knowing/checking specifics and assuming it wasn't a stable/~arch |
| 25 |
mixed-system issue, the problem here was likely a screwup. Someone |
| 26 |
didn't anticipate the effect of their update on your specific case, |
| 27 |
triggering an unintended result. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives