| 1 |
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300 |
| 3 |
> Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Why not? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to |
| 12 |
> what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who |
| 13 |
> know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are |
| 14 |
> expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you pushed important fixes to gcc, you should revbump it before |
| 17 |
unmasking it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If you skip the revbump, I'm sure most users will miss this. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There's virtually no expense to a revbump in this case. You just asked |
| 22 |
every user currently using gcc-4.5.1 to rebuild it, isn't a revbump the |
| 23 |
best, safest way to do that? |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Alex Alexander | wired |
| 26 |
+ Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 27 |
++ www.linuxized.com |
Archives