Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why does emerge want to downgrade firefox/xul-runner?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:57:57
Message-Id: 200908252315.08059.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Why does emerge want to downgrade firefox/xul-runner? by Grant Edwards
1 On Tuesday 25 August 2009 23:04:12 Grant Edwards wrote:
2 > Last week on all my systems emerge upgraded firefox (3.5.2-r1)
3 > and xul-runner (1.9.1.2-r2).
4 >
5 > Now it's decided it wants to downgrade all of them to 3.0.13
6 > and 1.9.0.13.
7 >
8 > Looking at the package database page, I see that firefox
9 > 3.5.2-r1 is marked as unstable (~x86). Same for xulrunner
10 > 1.3.1.2-r1. That explains why emerge wants to downgrade to the
11 > stable version: I don't have ~x86 unmasked for
12 > firefox/xulrunner and never have had.
13 >
14 > What I don't understand is why they got upgraded last week.
15 >
16 > Were firefox 3.5.2 and xulrunner 1.9.1.2 marked as stable last
17 > week and then changed back to unstable this week?
18
19 IIRC someone posted in the last few days that firefox and xulrunner were
20 briefly stable for a few hours.
21
22 fwiw, firefox-3.0.13 and xulrunner-1.9.0.13 are ~arch here, I synced two
23 hours ago and my mirror is 8-12 hours behind the master.
24
25 --
26 alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com