Nothing unusual besides a gcc-4.3 regression. Other archs already have it stable Thanks!
kpogre-1.5* won't build with that version and that is no regression...should I go for kpogre-1.6.6?
well, the problem is that I committed kpogre-1.6.6 10 days ago. If you want to mark it stable before the usual 30 days, please go ahead.
x86 stable
amd64 stable, we don't have a stable kpogre so I'll leave that alone.
alpha/ia64/sparc stable, closing
Well, I missed to fix the monlitic koffice ebuild, which specifies postgres? ( <dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 ), yet. You are aware that you have to check the repository, not to break the stable tree, are you!?
(In reply to comment #0) > Nothing unusual besides a gcc-4.3 regression. > Other archs already have it stable Honestly this isn't a valid reason to rush it at all. Not carefully checking the whole stable tree and waiting for all issues to be fixed before going ahead is quite unacceptable. I wonder why no one of those stabilizing for their secific architecture stumbled about it. Is the QA approach of Gentoo _that_ low nowadays?!
Just adding a reference to bug 229093 - "media-gfx/showimg-0.9.5 won't build against dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9".
libpqxx-2.6.9 just went back to unstable. Really, a few years back, you'd got a real kick in the ass for such an action.
come on, you had more than 3 months time to fix that stuff. And marking the thing stable doesn't break the stable tree, only removing 2.6.8 would. So, please revert your changes and close this bug.
Um, media-gfx/showimg-0.9.5 is stable and won't build against dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9. Unless I'm misunderstanding, that means dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 breaks the stable tree, no?
No, that means showimg is broken.
(In reply to comment #10) > come on, you had more than 3 months time to fix that stuff. And marking the > thing stable doesn't break the stable tree, only removing 2.6.8 would. You seem to have a completely broken understanding of what are the requirements of the stable tree and what are your responsibilities with regards to stabilization of an ebuild other ebuilds depend on. 1) The latest stable ebuild of any package:slot combination requiring the ebuild you want to mark stable has to work flawlessly with exactly the ebuild you want to mark stable (under the condition it is the highest version within the slot). No, some stable ebuilds working with libpqxx 2.6.8 only and others with 2.6.9 is not o.k. and exactly the definition of a broken stable tree. 2) It is the maintainers responsibility to check the tree for potential issues, with the usual procedure to create a tracker bug (if necessary as in this case) and cc affected maintainers ask for others to help you in case of unmaintained packages, e.g. via the gentoo-dev mailing list and test as much stuff as you can yourself. 3) Every arch maintainer is held to do exactly these checks for the architectures he feels responsible for, himself. Otherwise we could mark directly stable and wouldn't need the seconfd pair of eyes.
And btw.: No one had any time to do anything about this stabilization request, because no maintainer of affected packages has been informed.
cc'ing other maintainers, who broke the tree on their architecture.
(In reply to comment #15) > cc'ing other maintainers, who broke the tree on their architecture. I did what? :)
@carlo: Em, no. koffice has this in the DEPEND: "<dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9". As long as dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.8 stays in the tree everything's fine since the package manager should not show the update to dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 if koffice is installed or will be installed. And for the showimg case: change the dependency to the above and all will be fine until you fix it.
(In reply to comment #15) > cc'ing other maintainers, who broke the tree on their architecture. > Would you mind explaining what I did wrong wrt this bug? From the libpqcxx ChangeLog: 13 Aug 2007; Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> libpqxx-2.6.9.ebuild: ppc. stable Especially note "August" and "2007".
(In reply to comment #17) > @carlo: Em, no. koffice has this in the DEPEND: "<dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9". As > long as dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.8 stays in the tree everything's fine since the > package manager should not show the update to dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 if > koffice is installed or will be installed. The keyword here is 'should'. Your ideal does not match reality. Hence it breaks the tree.
@zlin: well, this is the package managers problem (or it's devs), not mine.
Carlo is in a way right, that such up- and downgrade cycles (emerge pulls in 2.6.9 as latest stable, koffice in the next run 2.6.8) are not acceptable in stable profile. I did check the stable profile that's why I asked for kpogre, so koffice slipped me in a way. This is of course the maintainers problem, but normally I as a architecture dev do refuse such a package until the maintainers has it fixed. So go on and propose an actual solution instead of fighting about if the unstabling was the right action to do.
Ok, please get this moving somehow...as 2.6.9 is the only version fixed for GCC 4.3. Thanks.
It's a shame that showimg includes a beta copy of kexi. It seems to be no longer maintained, and I think it would be difficult to get showimg to use an external version of kexi. I have attached a fix for showimg to compile against libpqxx-2.6.9 on bug #229093
Created attachment 178889 [details] unofficial ebuild for version 3.0
For what I understand, gcc-4.3 cannot go stable until dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 goes stable, as it blocks app-office/kexi.
kexi can also work on libpqxx-2.6.8 as soon as postgresql team patches it. Dropping severity to normal
I can't really figure out what you guys are arguing about, but I would like to compile koffice. It fails because it wants to downgrade to libpqxx-2.6.8 which will not compile. Any idea when this will be resolved?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 249248 ***
