Re: [gentoo-dev] GNOME 2.12.0 Final - Testing

[Phil Richards]

On 2005-09-14, John N. Laliberte <allanonjl@g.o> wrote:
>  The GNOME herd is now ready for 2.12.0 to be tested.
>  The gnome-2.12.0.ebuild should hit the mirrors shortly. ( just committed)
>  Please see this document for information on how to test:
>  http://dev.gentoo.org/~allanonjl/gnome/2.12.0/testing.instructions.txt

I might be being stupid, but having suitably unmasked what was suggested
I get:

| ~ # emerge -puv --newuse gnome
| 
| These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
| 
| Calculating dependencies \
| !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "sys-apps/pmount" have been masked.
| !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
| - sys-apps/pmount-0.9.3-r3 (masked by: package.mask)
| # Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o> (7 Sep 2005)
| # Remasking because the Gnome herd is too lazy to look
| # into bugs that are over 4 months old with regards to
| # hal and dbus. Patches provided and everything.
| # When I volunteered to fix it and handle any issues..
| # I received the stock "wait for foser" response.
|
| For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or
| section 2.2 "Software Availability" in the Gentoo Handbook.
| !!!    (dependency required by "gnome-base/gnome-vfs-2.12.0" [ebuild])

Normally, I would just unmask pmount, but the comment doesn't exactly
fill me with confidence as regards the stability of pmount (and whereas
I am happy for gnome to crash in a heap, I tend to be a little more
cautious around things that work at lower levels in the system)...

Should I just go ahead and unmask, or what if I want to test out gnome
2.12?

phil
-- 
change name before "@" to "phil" for email

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list