| 1 |
(d) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 4 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On 13 October 2014 17:58, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> I've got two obsolete packages masked currently: app-text/unix2dos and |
| 9 |
> app-doc/djbdns-man. Both of them block other stable packages, |
| 10 |
> app-text/dos2unix and net-dns/djbdns respectively. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Fortunately, both of them have had version/revision bumps since the |
| 13 |
> blocker so we can remove the blocker from the newer ebuild and then |
| 14 |
> stabilize that, at which point there's no problem. But I wonder, what |
| 15 |
> would be the best way to handle the situation if no version/revision |
| 16 |
> bump had occurred? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> In other words, suppose that net-dns/djbdns-1.05-r30 didn't exist. In |
| 19 |
> -r29, I have, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 hppa ~mips ppc ppc64 sparc x86" |
| 22 |
> DEPEND="!app-doc/djbdns-man" |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> and app-doc/djbdns-man is now hard masked. Suppose I remove djbdns-man |
| 25 |
> from the tree -- what do I do about the blocker? I see a couple of options: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> a) Edit the stable ebuild with ones fingers crossed |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> b) Do a revbump and wait it out |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> c) Do a revbump and file a stablereq immediately |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> d) Do nothing, will repoman tolerate that? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> (b) is obviously safest, but (c) seems reasonable as well all things |
| 37 |
> considered. Will the answer change when portage drops dynamic deps? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
Archives