| 1 |
On 25/06/14 06:42 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 2 |
> Except if they're locally hard masked ... ;-) |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
there's nothing we can do if you intentionally break your own system |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> In that case I think revbump is not warranted since it should continue |
| 7 |
>> to work for existing installation and new installations shouldn't be |
| 8 |
>> any different beside the dependency and not revbumping eliminates some |
| 9 |
>> needless rebuilts. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The point is: Why update silently the dependency versions for a stable |
| 13 |
> release? Especially in this case, because the now "required" versions are |
| 14 |
> the oldest stable ones in the official tree. Therefore anyone with the |
| 15 |
> official tree would have had those anyway. But such an action may affect |
| 16 |
> anyone with a local tree or overlays. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
wrong, please read the mail regarding the >= deps in the first place |
| 19 |
which you have been referred to repeatedly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>> I guess you could fork the needed packages (you can always get older |
| 22 |
>> versions from cvs) into your custom overlay for old eclipse and maintain |
| 23 |
>> them there under some slot. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> That's what I actually did for all "bumped" packages in the end. Effort for |
| 27 |
> nothing. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
broken system is broken |
Archives