| 1 |
Ok, I have sys-devel/gcc-3.2.2-r4 installed. |
| 2 |
It was at some point unmasked. |
| 3 |
I installed it. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
My system is now trying to downgrade me to 3.2.2-r1 even though |
| 6 |
I use --upgrade-only, and I'm guessing that the reason why is that |
| 7 |
not only is 3.2.2-r3 onwards masked, but 3.2.2-r4.ebuild has been |
| 8 |
deleted. And, in fact, all reference to it in ChangeLog has gone. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
*Please* *please* *please* don't do this. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If there is a problem with gcc-3.2.2-r4 by all means mask it; |
| 13 |
preferably put some comment in the package.mask file *why* you are |
| 14 |
masking it ("gcc with optimizations" doesn't tell me why it was |
| 15 |
unmasked and then masked). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Then I can decide whether or not I should downgrade. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As it is I have no practical choice, nor any information on which to |
| 20 |
make that choice. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
As far as I can tell it is the deletion of the ebuild that forces |
| 23 |
the downgrade - I am also concerned that a version that was visible |
| 24 |
to ~x86 users has now been wiped from the world as if it never existed; |
| 25 |
this leaves the possibility of a new, and different -r4 being released, |
| 26 |
with no tracability of versions. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If nothing else, a comment in the ChangeLog explaining what was going |
| 29 |
on would be good - that way you could have zapped the ebuild and people |
| 30 |
would have had some idea what was going on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
And then I wouldn't have whinged, and the world would be a happier |
| 33 |
place. Even if only slightly. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
phil |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives