Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jeremy Huddleston <eradicator@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA question wrg. GRP
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 03:39:30
Message-Id: 200402041939.28436.eradicator@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA question wrg. GRP by James Harlow
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 > > I think one solution would be to force
5 > > an update to the latest version of dependencies. It would go around any
6 > > binary problems like this, but it still wouldn't be pretty.
7 >
8 > Only if the binary was built against the latest version of dependencies!
9 > If it was built against (in this case) openssl-0.9.6, then you'd be
10 > creating the problem you're trying to solve.
11
12 We could just set the RDEPEND in the binary packages to be >= the versions
13 installed on the system that compiled the package.
14 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
15 Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
16
17 iD8DBQFAIbrtgKpk8srJOlIRAmzbAKCkOztYAZa/1m1/HxdKXEht2CsI7ACeLG79
18 VlYeDfYKaoRlHyo1A8zdelo=
19 =B7C9
20 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
21
22 --
23 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA question wrg. GRP Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] QA question wrg. GRP James Harlow <james@××××××××××××××.nu>