X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-CMAE-Analysis:	v=2.4 cv=Oa1dsjfY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5fde8af8
	a=+cj0cO56Fp8x7EdhTra87A==:117 a=RHMF+Ri+PG5f/Z3y0YO5Lw==:17
	a=9+rZDBEiDlHhcck0kWbJtElFXBc=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zTNgK-yGK50A:10
	a=Mj1Xp5F7AAAA:8 a=qYa1isandsS5w1IUokQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
	a=OCttjWrK5_uSHO_3Hkg-:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT:	glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Problem with Guile 2.2.4 dependency for gEDA 1.10.1.
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<f5ab1b6f-dbf3-4be3-a43f-eb74b32b7a51 AT fastmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012190043450 DOT 7556 AT nimbus>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012191400380 DOT 24569 AT nimbus>
	<20201219180603 DOT 22277 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012192036490 DOT 17515 AT nimbus>
	<20201219211448 DOT 24154 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
From:	"Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<e666a0bf-afce-12c6-3808-dea8c576d49d@epilitimus.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Dec 2020 15:21:20 -0800
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
	Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.3
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20201219211448.24154.qmail@stuge.se>
X-AntiAbuse:	This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse:	Primary Hostname - a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net
X-AntiAbuse:	Original Domain - delorie.com
X-AntiAbuse:	Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse:	Sender Address Domain - epilitimus.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: authenticated_id: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Authenticated-Sender:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4xfMD0eVFk3VeGHX99P3d/UgBuxOSKO/Kxm4Si6rrjGjs8GdUjlhiXLkVKV1cmPLMaWxJGiu30FjFFmhuvnCH/zWZ6K7P/w35ttFpoGIkOtweIAWivpHcv
	rKJOoxamBciaUQajBzKXI1mKPaelYqOqx3J25ZgH/81DE/gCr1v3bvbckP7WqqD39bhIMuZDaWX0HMFupTGVws4oOFrELVPSKmGJxKO9PqCklyijVjecmpUe
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Roland Lutz wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2020, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via 
>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>> You need to encode the *actual* minimum required dependencies in
>>> configure.ac, not what your particular testing environment uses.
>> How do I know what the "actual" minimum required version of a dependency 
>> is?
> It's the first version where all used APIs are available and functional.
>
> When inheriting a project it may require unmanageable effort to determine
> those for all used APIs, in thaitt case it's a good strategy to at least only
> ever bump required versions in commits which add some code that uses an API
> not available in the previously required version.
>
> The various GNOME projects are good at documenting first-available-version
> in their API documentation, but sometimes it sadly does become neccessary
> to search for that first version manually, when adding code which uses an
> API for the first time in a project.
>
>
> //Peter
>
Ideally yes. But in the interests of simplicity I would say that someone
at some point had what was considered a good reason to set the required
versions where they were, and things have been building without issue
with those version numbers. So set them back to where they were and then
only increase them when/asĀ  necessary, and we can all go back to working
on what we were doing before this kerfuffle started.

IMO a bug release is *not* a good place to be increasing dependency
versions, unless it is to fix a bug. A dependency upgrade should be a
minor version increase at the least since it means the code is no longer
backwards compatible. JMO

Glenn

- Raw text -