From gentoo-dev  Fri Aug 08 20:16:46 2014
From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs () gentoo ! org>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:16:46 +0000
To: gentoo-dev
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge
Message-Id: <53E5302E.7050401 () gentoo ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=140752901826098

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/08/14 03:56 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> 
> On 9 August 2014 07:34, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se 
> <mailto:peter@stuge.se>> wrote:
> 
> ebuilds often (for me) have artificial dependencies, when the
> actual version required is too old to be in the tree, but maybe not
> too old to be installed on an existing system.
> 
> 
> 
> The inverse is also true, sometimes you see people go:
> 
> "Well, upstream requires Foo 1.5 at least, but we have 2.0 as the
> oldest in tree, so we can just say dev-whatever/Foo  and be done
> with it"
> 
> Which turns out to be horribly wrong if somebody still has Foo 1.4 
> installed, for whatever reason.
> 
> And this is just one reason why being excessively lazy about what
> you upgrade could be secretly detrimental.
> 

Also very true.

I don't think we have any sort of tree-wide policy on this either, do
we?  Although I believe common sense says it's a good idea (and i hope
most devs do this) to put a minver on a dependency atom if there was
any ebuild with an older version in the tree within the last year.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlPlMC4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDUrgD+OiVN6HQKxNAOusj8PYI1O421
Dq2ihfhuQMz2HszG9DoBAJdTZJ9pRM6cFbkN+tcwFc/CAZUiWBe9MsSfoLkqho/C
=T+NJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----