| 1 |
On 06/29/2014 10:03 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker |
| 7 |
>>> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by |
| 8 |
>>> the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes). And docker depends on |
| 9 |
>>> lxc-1.0.0 according to the ebuild. But now that you have unmasked |
| 10 |
>>> docker, i think the deptree will be broken since lxc is still masked. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Repoman is monitored; therefore, someone from the QA team or so has |
| 13 |
>> probably masked Docker. Given that broken dependency tree again it is |
| 14 |
>> likely to happen again. So, please set it up a satisfiable state. :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> AutoRepoman :) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So that was me fixing the depgraph, taking the easy way out of adding an |
| 19 |
> unsatisfiable package to an existing related package.mask. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If people can't be bothered to even run repoman full or commit without --force |
| 22 |
> they'll get annoyed by my corrections - maybe it has an educational effect ;) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Have fun, |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Patrick |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks for the explanation Patrick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives