On 7/5/07, Scott Horowitz <stonecrest@gmail.com> wrote:
If you did want to handle this scenario for users, I think rather than having the maintainer have to deal with this, it'd be better to have pacman check if the package's dependencies have updates on a -S command also (e.g. pacman -S audacious implicitly means pacman -S audacious and any audacious deps). But again, users should be in the habit of upgrading their entire system.
I actually kind of like this behavior, and I know I've expected/wanted it at different points... I think it's definitely easier.... here's a use case: pacman -S bar (installs bar 1.0) ... bar is upgraded to 1.1 which means foo needs a recompile ... pacman -Sy pacman -S foo (installs the foo compiled against bar 1.1 but bar 1.0 is not upgraded). Now see, technically we can blame this on not using 'bar=1.1' in the deps, BUT we can't expect things like this all the time. I mean, in this case there is an OBVIOUS intent to mean that, it's just not written down.