Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-06-26, o godz. 00:48:02 > Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> napisał(a): > >> hasufell wrote: >> >> > Kristian Fiskerstrand: >> >> On 06/24/2014 09:25 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >>> Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >>>>> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed >> >>>>> for an existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g. >> >>>>> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)? >> >>>> >> >>>> Please see >> >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615 >> >> >> >>> These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been >> >>> just the updated versions for the dependencies. >> >> >> >> >> >> For what it is worth, I completely agree significant changes to stable >> >> ebuilds (hereunder changes to dependencies) should get a revision bump >> >> and go through normal stabilization procedures. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > That would be a waste of time and would increase the overall workload >> > on arch teams who already need 2-4 weeks to keep up with the queue. >> > There is no reason to re-stabilize a package after a build-time bug has >> > been fixed by adjusting the version of a dependency. >> > >> > Moreover, the fix that was applied was very important. >> >> >> And, since the official tree did not have an older version of those deps >> anyway, the upgrade in the stable dependent ebuilds was unnecessary. It >> just broke the tree for users with local or other overlays. > > But people could have older versions of those deps installed, and then > their systems would slowly become broken on upgrades. Since the issues > wouldn't be caught early properly, they would trigger incorrect > installs of another packages and a few dep-tree branches further, > an unexpected hard-to-debug failures.
OK, you have a point. However, it is more dependent on the way people use emerge. This scenario could not have happen to me, I call emerge always with: emerge -uDvta --changed-use --with-bdeps=y Cheers, Jörg