1 |
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:37:13 +0000 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:21:23 +0200, gevisz wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > $ eix gvim |
6 |
> > [I] app-editors/gvim |
7 |
> > Available versions: 8.0.0106 ~8.0.0386 **9999 {acl aqua cscope |
8 |
> > debug gnome gtk gtk3 lua luajit motif neXt netbeans nls perl python |
9 |
> > racket ruby selinux session tcl PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_4 |
10 |
> > python3_5 python3_6"} |
11 |
> > Installed versions: 8.0.0106(05:36:17 PM 12/11/2016)(acl gtk |
12 |
> > python session -aqua -cscope -debug -gnome -gtk3 -lua -luajit -motif |
13 |
> > -neXt -netbeans -nls -perl -racket -ruby -selinux -tcl |
14 |
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_4 -python3_5") |
15 |
> > Homepage: http://www.vim.org/ https://github.com/vim/vim |
16 |
> > Description: GUI version of the Vim text editor |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > So, in my portage tree currently there is one stable gvim package with |
19 |
> > version 8.0.0106 |
20 |
> > and one unstable gvim package, with version 8.0.0386. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Why portage force me to unmask an unstable version of the package then? |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask |
25 |
> > world --exclude chromiumg |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
28 |
> |
29 |
> > [ebuild U ] app-editors/vim-8.0.0386 [8.0.0106] |
30 |
> > PYTHON_TARGETS="(-python3_6)" |
31 |
> > [ebuild NS ] virtual/libusb-0-r2 [1-r2] ABI_X86="32 (64) (-x32)" |
32 |
> > [ebuild U ] app-vim/gentoo-syntax-20170225 [20160530] |
33 |
> > [ebuild U ~] app-editors/gvim-8.0.0386 [8.0.0106] |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Because vim-8.0.0386 is stable and, presumably, the vim and gvim versions |
36 |
> must match. |
37 |
|
38 |
Probably, you are right. |
39 |
|
40 |
But why to mark vim-8.0.0386 being stable, before gvim-8.0.0386? |
41 |
|
42 |
> I would suggest filing a stabilisation bug for gvim, |
43 |
|
44 |
As later replies suggest, it is already done. |
45 |
|
46 |
My thanks to all who replied. |
47 |
|
48 |
> or just use emacs... |
49 |
|
50 |
:) |