| 1 |
On 06/29/2014 09:12 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 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 |
It's been a long time and sources.g.o is down so i can't check the |
| 16 |
history of that file. |
| 17 |
I think docker-1.0 was not present when i first committed >=lxc-1.0.0 in |
| 18 |
the tree. So, when docker-1.0 was committed, maybe repoman full was not |
| 19 |
checked, leading to a docker with broken deps and maybe QA team masked |
| 20 |
it because of that. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Anyway apologies for the inconvenience. It was certainly not intentional |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Markos Chandras |
Archives