| 1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Dnia 2014-06-26, o godz. 00:48:02 |
| 4 |
> Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@×××.de> napisał(a): |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> hasufell wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> > Kristian Fiskerstrand: |
| 9 |
>> >> On 06/24/2014 09:25 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 10 |
>> >>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 11 |
>> >> |
| 12 |
>> >>>> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 13 |
>> >>>>> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed |
| 14 |
>> >>>>> for an existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g. |
| 15 |
>> >>>>> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)? |
| 16 |
>> >>>> |
| 17 |
>> >>>> Please see |
| 18 |
>> >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615 |
| 19 |
>> >> |
| 20 |
>> >>> These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been |
| 21 |
>> >>> just the updated versions for the dependencies. |
| 22 |
>> >> |
| 23 |
>> >> |
| 24 |
>> >> For what it is worth, I completely agree significant changes to stable |
| 25 |
>> >> ebuilds (hereunder changes to dependencies) should get a revision bump |
| 26 |
>> >> and go through normal stabilization procedures. |
| 27 |
>> >> |
| 28 |
>> >> |
| 29 |
>> > |
| 30 |
>> > That would be a waste of time and would increase the overall workload |
| 31 |
>> > on arch teams who already need 2-4 weeks to keep up with the queue. |
| 32 |
>> > There is no reason to re-stabilize a package after a build-time bug has |
| 33 |
>> > been fixed by adjusting the version of a dependency. |
| 34 |
>> > |
| 35 |
>> > Moreover, the fix that was applied was very important. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> And, since the official tree did not have an older version of those deps |
| 39 |
>> anyway, the upgrade in the stable dependent ebuilds was unnecessary. It |
| 40 |
>> just broke the tree for users with local or other overlays. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> But people could have older versions of those deps installed, and then |
| 43 |
> their systems would slowly become broken on upgrades. Since the issues |
| 44 |
> wouldn't be caught early properly, they would trigger incorrect |
| 45 |
> installs of another packages and a few dep-tree branches further, |
| 46 |
> an unexpected hard-to-debug failures. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
OK, you have a point. However, it is more dependent on the way people use |
| 49 |
emerge. This scenario could not have happen to me, I call emerge always |
| 50 |
with: |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
emerge -uDvta --changed-use --with-bdeps=y |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Cheers, |
| 55 |
Jörg |
Archives