| 1 |
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alex Alexander <wired@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300 |
| 6 |
> > Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages. |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > Why not? |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to |
| 15 |
> > what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who |
| 16 |
> > know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are |
| 17 |
> > expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If you pushed important fixes to gcc, you should revbump it before |
| 20 |
> unmasking it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> If you skip the revbump, I'm sure most users will miss this. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> There's virtually no expense to a revbump in this case. You just asked |
| 25 |
> every user currently using gcc-4.5.1 to rebuild it, isn't a revbump the |
| 26 |
> best, safest way to do that? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Since everyone and their dog seems to have unmasked it already I'll make an |
| 29 |
exception. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
| 33 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
| 34 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives