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