| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/09/15 03:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Michał Górny |
| 6 |
> <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> 2. Dependency changes that don't need to apply immediately |
| 8 |
>> don't need revbump. For example, if foo.eclass raises minimal |
| 9 |
>> required version of a dependency but all packages built so far |
| 10 |
>> will work with the old one. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Are we talking about a build dependency or a run-time |
| 14 |
> dependency? I don't get why we'd increase the minimal required |
| 15 |
> version of a run-time dependency if everything built so far still |
| 16 |
> works with the old version. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm also concerned with this one. Bumping version in an eclass so |
| 19 |
that the minver that everything -in the tree- needs is correct seems |
| 20 |
to me could suddenly make incorrect everything that's currently |
| 21 |
emerged up to that change. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That said this might not matter since deps are almost always pushed |
| 24 |
up to latest stable/~arch anyways, so perhaps i'm just generally |
| 25 |
being more sensitive on this than is necessary. Definitely, if the |
| 26 |
minver was bumped to fix a bug, then imo the eclass needs bumping to |
| 27 |
enforce the vdb update. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlX5yR4ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3BZQD8CPVQ/oEjszqAFtgQzLFKKOSz |
| 35 |
3fXRt3ARQE8HHI/jyTwA/jMOnDTTENLs7R/8r2VYYrHIUAv6mrQljuSU2zalJEXY |
| 36 |
=S25f |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives