On Saturday 30 June 2012 07:22:39 Zac Medico wrote: > On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > I would like to discuss a bit more issues like: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087 > > > > Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this breakage when > > downgraded, I think it should be prevented and package managers > > shouldn't try to downgrade this kind of packages as they will later > > cause a total breakage. People is not supposed to know that downgrading > > some package system will, for example, have an unusable gcc. > > It seems like a die in pkg_pretend would serve pretty well.
doing it on a per-ebuild basis doesn't make much sense. a simple version compare (like we do in glibc as an exception to this rule because of its much wider implication) is incorrect: the new version might not introduce any new symbols compared to the old one, and even if it has, other packages might not have been linked against the new symbols. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
