| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:37 PM Benda Xu <heroxbd@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > This looks a lot safer than yesterday's patch since there are no |
| 6 |
> > ebuild removals here. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Thank you Mike. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > If/when you do want to remove old ebuilds, I suggest creating a github |
| 11 |
> > PR, and let the CI bot check reverse dependencies. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yeah, that would have been a much safer way to remove ebuilds. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > This was actually done for the change that was reverted yesterday, but |
| 16 |
> > it seems like the CI results were ignored and the commit was pushed |
| 17 |
> > regardless. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Yesterday the original pull requests by Mo did not remove ebuilds. It |
| 20 |
> was only when I started to adopt the PR that I saw |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > RepoMan scours the neighborhood... |
| 23 |
> > repo.eapi-deprecated 1 |
| 24 |
> > virtual/cblas/cblas-1.0.ebuild: 5 |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> after which I impulsively killed it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ah, that makes more sense. |
Archives