| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier |
| 6 |
> <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if |
| 10 |
>>> there are no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for |
| 11 |
>>> a package, that package doesn't need to have a minimum version |
| 12 |
>>> on the dependency atom. As such, issues similar to this are |
| 13 |
>>> probably lying in wait all other the place in the tree. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> this is a common misconception: ebuilds must have min. deps |
| 16 |
>> matching their requirements (exactly because of this problem) |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> it can be fixed on the user side by 'emerge -uDN world' meanwhile |
| 19 |
>> but this doesn't mean the ebuild doesn't have a bug, even if |
| 20 |
>> minor |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Alexis. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> When I started contributing via sunrise, I've been adding the |
| 25 |
> minimal versions of dependencies as declared by upstream but I met |
| 26 |
> with very strict enforcement of the policy to not specify minimal |
| 27 |
> version if all the ones in current tree satisfies. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Is it documented somewhere or is it just unwritten consensus? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> What I see is only Ebuild Policy [1e] which doesn't deal with |
| 32 |
> this. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> .. [1e] |
| 35 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
I searched as well, and couldn't find anything documented one way or |
| 39 |
the other, either. I concluded that it's unwritten consensus. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
That's the main reason I wanted to start this discussion -- to |
| 42 |
effectively start documenting it and get dev's all on the same page. |
| 43 |
To be honest I think it should be policy or at least a written-down |
| 44 |
guideline, that dev's should do this within reason -- if an |
| 45 |
older-than-minimum version of something has been in the tree within |
| 46 |
the past year. Gone for more than a year should be safe, I expect. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 51 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlJ6hKMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB8RwD/aYX0JSAeb1xsWVejdf65jPVP |
| 54 |
QSIYlCp5v/gdYw88kdMA/22f9UHoBep+iwJq5uYeHLmJFMRYRELnihBhNJkzM5rE |
| 55 |
=3xf4 |
| 56 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives