| 1 |
On Thursday 07 September 2006 13:48, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> I wonder how exactly genstef broke mips, 'cos mind you, he just reverted |
| 3 |
> to what the ebuild was doing before Bug 114161 was fixed by |
| 4 |
> hard-disabling of hspell [1]. Since mips doesn't have hspell keyworded, |
| 5 |
> it wasn't affected by that bug before it's been fixed and it wasn't |
| 6 |
> affected after the bug has been reintroduced now [2] (Additionally there |
| 7 |
> shouldn't be any problem now except for one called automagic |
| 8 |
> dependencies since the blocker for incompatible versions was there). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You're right. It was very early in the morning, I saw the dependency not |
| 11 |
matching architectures, but wasn't aware that blocker dependencies are not |
| 12 |
taken into account with regards to tree breakage. So: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Dear Stefan, |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I was wrong, you didn't break the tree. Please excuse that I did accuse you |
| 18 |
doing this. I regret not having verfied my position, before i filed the bug. |
| 19 |
Furthermore I'd like to add that, as blubb put it in an private email, my |
| 20 |
intention wasn't to put you down, but to shed light on the issue - apparently |
| 21 |
making myself a fool. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
One question remains: Is it needed/correct that Portage doesn't take blockers |
| 26 |
for architecture breakages into account? Such a line/prefix is easily changed |
| 27 |
and when someone - whatever the bad reason is - uses cvs commit, a real tree |
| 28 |
breakage is the cause. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Carsten |
Archives