[arch-general] Depends on foo-bar=10.0-3

[Eli Schwartz]

On 08/15/2017 03:47 AM, Paul Gideon Dann via arch-general wrote:
> Yes, partial upgrades are unsupported, but in practice this still happens,
> usually not deliberately. For instance, I will quite often do a "pacman -S
> <package>" without doing a full system update first, assuming that
> *probably* nothing important has changed since the last update. It's a
> sloppy practice, but humans cut corners: it happens. When a plugin relies
> on a potentially unstable ABI (not many applications offer stable ABIs),
> specifying that the plugin package requires that exact version of the
> application will ensure that mistakes like this don't happen.
> 
> If I see an error like "package x requires y=1.2.3" when installing a
> package, the first thing I'll try is a system update, an obscure segfault
> is avoided, and everyone's happy. So the failsafe does the job. It's good
> defensive practice by the packaging team, I think.

What.

No, the packaging team explicitly does not care about you, and official
policy is to yell at you for having once upon a time run pacman -Sy
without -u
That is pretty deliberate on your part.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20170815/2d39fc37/attachment-0001.asc>