| 1 |
Maik Schreiber wrote: |
| 2 |
> If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something |
| 3 |
> because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can |
| 4 |
> mask the package itself "stable" as well. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its |
| 7 |
> dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable". |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Hm, got it wrong and mozilla doesnt use the system xft anymore (this |
| 12 |
saves some trouble i agree with Az, but it has it's disadvantages as |
| 13 |
well). Anyway, altough most users see a pack as stable there may still |
| 14 |
be trouble, afaics here Azarah was still tweaking it, so it should be |
| 15 |
masked and if it was intertwined with xft-2 then it surely should be |
| 16 |
cause that's an extra unstable factor. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And i'm not sure it's a good idea to stabilize top packages while some |
| 19 |
of it's -needed- deps are still masked testing, i mean this will break |
| 20 |
things like -u world won't it ? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- foser |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
PS. (devs only) Is all this crossposting necessary? Just keep this in |
| 25 |
-dev only. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives