1 |
On 01 Feb 2016 22:16, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
2 |
> Am Montag, 1. Februar 2016, 21:30:41 schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
3 |
> > On 01 Feb 2016 19:55, Patrice Clement wrote: |
4 |
> > > > New issues: |
5 |
> > > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/780f65b/output.html#dev-libs/efl |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > This commit is breaking the tree: |
8 |
> > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=97a6aec |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > I did try to work around the issue you've introduced when but the |
11 |
> > > enlightenment eclasses are a bit of mystery to me and I eventually gave |
12 |
> > > up. |
13 |
> > > |
14 |
> > > Could you revert this commit and fix this issue? |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > the issue is that efl-1.15.2 is marked stable for alpha/ia64/sparc, and |
17 |
> > it depends on app-i18n/ibus, but commit 97a6aec deleted the only ibus |
18 |
> > ebuild that was marked stable for those arches. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > it can be fixed in a few ways (i'm listing in order of preference): |
21 |
> > (1) mark a newer ibus stable |
22 |
> > (2) revert that commit to re-add the old stable ebuilds |
23 |
> > (3) add USE=ibus to package.use.stable.mask for these arches |
24 |
> > (4) degrade all packages for these arches to unstable |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I took the liberty of doing (2) and reverted the commit. Not sure why this |
27 |
> needs so much discussion; after all a broken tree is always suboptimal. |
28 |
|
29 |
unless things are on fire (which i don't think this was), i don't |
30 |
generally clamor for 0-day fixes. if we can find a better fix in |
31 |
a day or so, then i'm happy for that. i dislike repos with history |
32 |
that is just a constant stream of land, revert, land, revert, land. |
33 |
|
34 |
not that i'm saying your revert was wrong ... just airing my |
35 |
general personal preferences. |
36 |
-mike |