Bug 438788 – mail-client/alpine-2.00-r5 Please stabilize

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Eray Aslan 2012-10-18 11:39:51 UTC]

Will add arches in 30 days.

[Comment 1 Philippe Chaintreuil 2012-10-22 14:54:06 UTC]

See bug #439264 -- mail-client/alpine-2.00-r5 fails to install with +doc on amd64 at least.

[Comment 2 Sean McGovern 2012-11-27 16:12:32 UTC]

now that #439264 is fixed, ping for stable-ization(sp?).

[Comment 3 Eray Aslan 2012-11-27 19:50:36 UTC]

Arches, please test and mark stable =mail-client/alpine-2.00-r5.  Thank you.

[Comment 4 Agostino Sarubbo 2012-11-30 11:27:54 UTC]

amd64 stable

[Comment 5 Agostino Sarubbo 2012-12-07 21:30:41 UTC]

ppc stable

[Comment 6 John Hardin 2012-12-14 20:34:24 UTC]

Please review; 2.00-r5 cannot be installed alongside net-mail/uw-imap (e.g. on a mail server) because it pulls in c-client, where 2.00-r4 _could_ be installed alongside net-mail/uw-imap (which is working in my environment).


athena portage # emerge -uNDp alpine

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] net-libs/c-client-2007f-r4  USE="chappa ipv6 pam ssl -doc -kerberos -static-libs -topal"
[ebuild     U  ] mail-client/alpine-2.00-r5 [2.00-r4]
[blocks B      ] net-libs/c-client ("net-libs/c-client" is blocking net-mail/uw-imap-2007f-r1)
[blocks B      ] net-mail/uw-imap ("net-mail/uw-imap" is blocking net-libs/c-client-2007f-r4)

 * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
 * installed at the same time on the same system.

  (net-libs/c-client-2007f-r4::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    >=net-libs/c-client-2007f-r4[-topal,chappa] required by (mail-client/alpine-2.00-r5::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
    net-libs/c-client[ssl] required by (virtual/imap-c-client-1::gentoo, installed)

  (net-mail/uw-imap-2007f-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
    net-mail/uw-imap required by @selected

[Comment 7 Eray Aslan 2012-12-15 20:05:16 UTC]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Please review;

That regression is on purpose.  Please see bug #391387.

Please open a separate bug report in the future.

[Comment 8 Agostino Sarubbo 2012-12-18 17:27:51 UTC]

ia64 stable

[Comment 9 Jeff (JD) Horelick (RETIRED) 2012-12-27 02:31:33 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 10 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) 2012-12-30 16:45:42 UTC]

alpha/sparc stable