| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote: |
| 6 |
> > William Hubbs: |
| 7 |
> >> My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is |
| 8 |
> >> that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then |
| 9 |
> >> have to hit the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, |
| 10 |
> >> with stable requests just because we changed the dependencies. |
| 11 |
> >> Isn't that causing a lot of possibly unnecessary work for our |
| 12 |
> >> arch teams? |
| 13 |
> > Procedure over logic? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Just commit it straight to arch if repoman doesn't complain. |
| 16 |
> William, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> this is, as Julian pointed out, a problem you can solve by changing |
| 19 |
> your policies. This is not a problem related to the Portage software, |
| 20 |
> in which dynamic-deps are broken. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
s/your/our/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Repoman refuses to commit if you try to go directly to stable without |
| 25 |
using --force. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm just being cautious; I'm not sure whether this qualifies as the type |
| 28 |
of emergency situation where commiting directly to stable is a good |
| 29 |
thing or not. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
Archives