| 1 |
On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 22:34, Maik Schreiber wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>version |
| 3 |
> >>1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's |
| 4 |
> >>no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > It depends -possibly- on the xft-2 ebuild and that isn't marked stable |
| 7 |
> > yet, that's the reason. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something |
| 10 |
> because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can |
| 11 |
> mask the package itself "stable" as well. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its |
| 14 |
> dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable". |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Mozilla 1.2.1 is marked as testing, cause there are still some minor |
| 19 |
issues with it. Then, if anybody did mind checking, it do not |
| 20 |
depend on x11-libs/xft, but compile it internally. I have taken |
| 21 |
much time to have its Xft2.0 'contained' ... you will see that its |
| 22 |
not even libXft.so or libXrender.so anymore, but libXft_moz.so and |
| 23 |
libXrender_moz.so ... This change seems to fix some issues that |
| 24 |
some people had with it not starting, so it may be marked stable |
| 25 |
in a bit if all goes well ... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 32 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives