| 1 |
hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand: |
| 4 |
>> On 06/24/2014 09:25 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed |
| 9 |
>>>>> for an existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g. |
| 10 |
>>>>> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)? |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> Please see |
| 13 |
>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615 |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>>> These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been |
| 16 |
>>> just the updated versions for the dependencies. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> For what it is worth, I completely agree significant changes to stable |
| 20 |
>> ebuilds (hereunder changes to dependencies) should get a revision bump |
| 21 |
>> and go through normal stabilization procedures. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> That would be a waste of time and would increase the overall workload on |
| 26 |
> arch teams who already need 2-4 weeks to keep up with the queue. There |
| 27 |
> is no reason to re-stabilize a package after a build-time bug has been |
| 28 |
> fixed by adjusting the version of a dependency. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Moreover, the fix that was applied was very important. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
And, since the official tree did not have an older version of those deps |
| 34 |
anyway, the upgrade in the stable dependent ebuilds was unnecessary. It just |
| 35 |
broke the tree for users with local or other overlays. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
- Jörg |
Archives