Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Gevisz <gevisz@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why portage demands to unmask an unstable version of the package?
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:32:00
Message-Id: 58bb161c.52092e0a.6a0c0.0b3c@mx.google.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Why portage demands to unmask an unstable version of the package? by Neil Bothwick
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 :)