Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-10 Thread Thomas Kahle
On 11/09/2013 06:02 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: >> Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot: >>> On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona wrote: Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit : >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-09 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 18:02:50 schrieb Matt Turner: > > > (I also learnt as a recruit that "versionless dependency is fine if all > > versions in the portage tree fulfill it". As a consequence I have been > > regularly dropping version dependencies from ebuilds for simplification > > if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-09 Thread Matt Turner
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot: >> On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona wrote: >> > Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit : >> >> in short: if a package requires version X then the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-09 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Samstag, 9. November 2013, 02:19:32 schrieb Ben de Groot: > On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona wrote: > > Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit : > >> in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require > >> version X; it can be forgotten but i

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-08 Thread Ben de Groot
On 8 November 2013 08:55, Rémi Cardona wrote: > Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit : >> in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require >> version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug. > > That _is_ our policy. Since this thread was deemed ne

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-08 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:28:13PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon > wrote: > > I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of > > a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree. > > > > Rationale: A package will bu

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-07 Thread Rémi Cardona
Le jeudi 07 novembre 2013 à 10:44 +0100, Alexis Ballier a écrit : > in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should require > version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug. That _is_ our policy. Ebuilds should - at the very least - mirror what upstream's build script requires. So

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-07 Thread Peter Stuge
Alexis Ballier wrote: > its kind of common sense IMHO Unfortunately what makes sense to people is never common. :\ > there shouldn't be any time limit .. > in short: if a package requires version X then the ebuild should > require version X; it can be forgotten but it's a bug. +1 //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-07 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:04 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >>> However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread yac
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:22:13 -0500 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > > On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > I agree with this sentiment. It's always been my view that the needs of > a package are driven by the package itself, not by the tree. > > Rationale: A package will build and run as long as it's own requirements > are met regardless of what t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/11/13 12:56 PM, yac wrote: > On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if >>> there are no deps in t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread yac
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:48:54 +0100 Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there > > are no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for a package, > > that package doesn't need to have

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 06/11/2013 17:26, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > > > The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge -uDN > @world prior to emerging (upgrading?) firefox, and they had icu-49 > already installed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 11/6/13 7:15 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > The synopsis of the situation is that the latest firefox ebuild now > depends on icu, specifically icu-50.1 or above. When this version of > firefox was added to the tree, the lowest version of icu in the tree > was icu-51.0 -- in fact, icu-48 through

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:15 -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > However, it's been a long-standing general practise that if there are > no deps in the tree older than what is necessary for a package, that > package doesn't need to have a minimum version on the dependency atom. > As such, issues simil

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 06/11/13 10:26 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > > > The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge > -uDN @world prior to emerging (upgrading?) firefox, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Kent Fredric
On 7 November 2013 04:15, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > The bug that was filed, is that a user didn't do a full emerge -uDN > @world prior to emerging (upgrading?) firefox, and they had icu-49 > already installed. Because the firefox dep didn't have a minimum > version, portage didn't see upgradin

[gentoo-dev] Policy-level discussion for minimum versions on dependencies

2013-11-06 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all... Mozilla had a bug recently ( http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489838 ) that I think has much wider implications for all packages, and I would like to discuss how to best address this. The synopsis of the situation is that the latest