Fwd: Re: [artix-general] icu - run both versions

[Ruben Safir]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:43:09PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Cromer
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Ruben Safir <ruben at mrbrklyn.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:23:21AM -0300, Chris Cromer wrote:
> >> I admit that ICU getting pushed too soon was a problem. But the problem was
> >> not because of a broken package. All those other packages needed to be
> >> recompiled against the new libs since the ABI is incompatible in the new
> >> lib. An unfortunate situation yes, but sometimes these things happen on a
> >> rolling release distro.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That is incorrect.  I was talking to Rick Moen about this last night and
> > the packages are broken and were always broken and will continue to be
> > broken.  ICU is not a declared dependency in the packages although they
> > are in the source files.
> 
> Packages don't have to have "depends" declcared for every single
> possible thing in the packages to link against them, it is enough that
> they are installed by a dependency of a dependency. So if package C
> depends on package B and package A, and package B depends on package
> A, it is enough to make package C only depend on package B which forms
> a chain of dependencies. 


BTW - yeah what you describe here seems to have failed.  There should
be a cascade of dependencies and they were broken.

A is udate that should have caused B to be update which should have
triggered C to be in conflict.

or A is updated and then B and C needs to be updated which should have
caused a conflict with E and F through B and G and H through C.

If it fails in autoconf it should fail in the binary package.