1 |
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> I don't think we have any sort of tree-wide policy on this either, do |
3 |
> we? Although I believe common sense says it's a good idea (and i hope |
4 |
> most devs do this) to put a minver on a dependency atom if there was |
5 |
> any ebuild with an older version in the tree within the last year. |
6 |
|
7 |
There is no reason not to specify a version constraint if you're aware of it. |
8 |
|
9 |
However, I wouldn't expect devs to go digging around in cvs for |
10 |
year-old package versions to test against them. If upstream happens |
11 |
to say it requires foo-1.5, by all means just take their word for it |
12 |
and list it, but more often than not they don't bother to test old |
13 |
versions either or note when the APIs they use were introduced. |
14 |
|
15 |
Rich |