226621 2008-06-14 12:01 0000 dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9 stabilization request 2009-05-29 08:41:27 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Ebuilds unspecified All Linux RESOLVED DUPLICATE STABLEREQ P2 blocker --- 1 dev-zero@gentoo.org pgsql-bugs@gentoo.org dertobi123@gentoo.org fauli@gentoo.org jer@gentoo.org mike@nerone.org qa@gentoo.org rmedina@rochester.rr.com tampakrap@gentoo.org tgall@gentoo.org dev-zero@gentoo.org 2008-06-14 12:01:21 0000 Nothing unusual besides a gcc-4.3 regression. Other archs already have it stable Thanks! fauli@gentoo.org 2008-06-17 22:06:09 0000 kpogre-1.5* won't build with that version and that is no regression...should I go for kpogre-1.6.6? dev-zero@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 07:24:52 0000 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. fauli@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 07:46:21 0000 x86 stable tanderson@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 16:51:00 0000 amd64 stable, we don't have a stable kpogre so I'll leave that alone. armin76@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 17:42:54 0000 alpha/ia64/sparc stable, closing carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 17:49:12 0000 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!? carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 17:53:40 0000 (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?! mike@nerone.org 2008-06-23 18:11:42 0000 Just adding a reference to bug 229093 - "media-gfx/showimg-0.9.5 won't build against dev-libs/libpqxx-2.6.9". carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 18:28:57 0000 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. dev-zero@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 20:36:53 0000 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. mike@nerone.org 2008-06-23 20:46:23 0000 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? nyhm@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 20:56:34 0000 No, that means showimg is broken. carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 22:38:54 0000 (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. carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 22:43:30 0000 And btw.: No one had any time to do anything about this stabilization request, because no maintainer of affected packages has been informed. carlo@gentoo.org 2008-06-23 22:50:10 0000 cc'ing other maintainers, who broke the tree on their architecture. jer@gentoo.org 2008-06-24 00:41:42 0000 (In reply to comment #15) > cc'ing other maintainers, who broke the tree on their architecture. I did what? :) dev-zero@gentoo.org 2008-06-24 06:28:33 0000 @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. dertobi123@gentoo.org 2008-06-24 15:53:02 0000 (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". zlin@gentoo.org 2008-06-29 22:22:03 0000 (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. dev-zero@gentoo.org 2008-06-30 06:12:31 0000 @zlin: well, this is the package managers problem (or it's devs), not mine. fauli@gentoo.org 2008-07-09 07:23:11 0000 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. fauli@gentoo.org 2008-11-05 17:28:10 0000 Ok, please get this moving somehow...as 2.6.9 is the only version fixed for GCC 4.3. Thanks. me@mattm.id.au 2008-11-25 00:40:52 0000 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 gabaden@gmail.com 2009-01-18 14:52:16 0000 Created an attachment (id=178889) unofficial ebuild for version 3.0 deathwing00@gentoo.org 2009-02-11 12:49:54 0000 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. tampakrap@gentoo.org 2009-02-11 15:27:36 0000 kexi can also work on libpqxx-2.6.8 as soon as postgresql team patches it. Dropping severity to normal rmedina@rochester.rr.com 2009-03-27 19:54:59 0000 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? fauli@gentoo.org 2009-05-29 08:41:27 0000 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 249248 *** 178889 2009-01-18 14:52 0000 unofficial ebuild for version 3.0 libpqxx-3.0.ebuild text/plain IyBDb3B5cmlnaHQgMTk5OS0yMDA4IEdlbnRvbyBGb3VuZGF0aW9uCiMgRGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgdW5k ZXIgdGhlIHRlcm1zIG9mIHRoZSBHTlUgR2VuZXJhbCBQdWJsaWMgTGljZW5zZSB2MgojICRIZWFk ZXI6IC92YXIvY3Zzcm9vdC9nZW50b28teDg2L2Rldi1saWJzL2xpYnBxeHgvbGlicHF4eC0yLjYu OS5lYnVpbGQsdiAxLjEyIDIwMDgvMDYvMjMgMTg6Mjc6NDcgY2FybG8gRXhwICQKCmluaGVyaXQg ZXV0aWxzCgpLRVlXT1JEUz0ifmFscGhhIH5hbWQ2NCB+aHBwYSB+aWE2NCB+cHBjIH5wcGM2NCB+ c3BhcmMgfng4NiB+eDg2LWZic2QiCgpERVNDUklQVElPTj0iQysrIGNsaWVudCBBUEkgZm9yIFBv c3RncmVTUUwuIFRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZCBmcm9udC1lbmQgZm9yIHdyaXRpbmcgQysrIHByb2dyYW1z IHRoYXQgdXNlIFBvc3RncmVTUUwuIFN1cGVyc2VkZXMgb2xkZXIgbGlicHErKyBpbnRlcmZhY2Uu IgpTUkNfVVJJPSJmdHA6Ly9wcXh4Lm9yZy9zb2Z0d2FyZS8ke1BOfS8ke1B9LnRhci5neiIKSE9N RVBBR0U9Imh0dHA6Ly9wcXh4Lm9yZy9kZXZlbG9wbWVudC9saWJwcXh4LyIKTElDRU5TRT0iQlNE IgpTTE9UPSIwIgpJVVNFPSIiCgpERVBFTkQ9InZpcnR1YWwvcG9zdGdyZXNxbC1iYXNlIgpSREVQ RU5EPSIke0RFUEVORH0iCgpzcmNfdW5wYWNrKCkgewoJdW5wYWNrICR7QX0KCWNkICIke1N9IgoK CSMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHNhZmUgZW5vdWdoIHRvIHJlbW92ZSB0aGUgbGluZXMgZGlyZWN0bHkgZnJv bSBjb25maWd1cmUsCgkjIHNpbmNlIGl0J3MgY29waWVkIGRpcmVjdGx5IGZyb20gY29uZmlndXJl LmFjCglzZWQgLWkgXAoJCS1lICdzL1woZ2NjX3Zpc2liaWxpdHlcKT15ZXMvXDE9bm8vZycgXAoJ CS1lICdzQFwoI2RlZmluZSBQUVhYX0hBVkVfR0NDX1ZJU0lCSUxJVFkgMVwpQC8qIFwxICovQGcn IFwKCQktZSAnLy1XZXJyb3IvZCcgXAoJCWNvbmZpZ3VyZSB8fCBkaWUgInNlZCBmYWlsZWQiCn0K CnNyY19jb21waWxlKCkgewoJZWNvbmYgLS1lbmFibGUtc2hhcmVkIHx8IGRpZSAiZWNvbmYgZmFp bGVkIgoJZW1ha2UgfHwgZGllICJlbWFrZSBmYWlsZWQiCn0KCnNyY19pbnN0YWxsICgpIHsKCWVt YWtlIERFU1RESVI9IiR7RH0iIGluc3RhbGwgfHwgZGllICJlbWFrZSBpbnN0YWxsIGZhaWxlZCIK Cglkb2RvYyBBVVRIT1JTIENoYW5nZUxvZyBORVdTIFJFQURNRSogVE9ETwoJZG9odG1sIC1yIGRv Yy9odG1sLyoKfQoKc3JjX3Rlc3QoKSB7Cglld2FybiAiVGhlIHRlc3RzIG5lZWQgYSBydW5uaW5n IFBvc3RncmVTUUwgc2VydmVyIGFuZCBhbiBleGlzdGluZyBkYXRhYmFzZSEiCglld2FybiAiWW91 IGNhbiBzZXQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCB2YXJpYWJsZXMgdG8gY2hhbmdlIHRo ZSBjb25uZWN0aW9uIHBhcmFtZXRlcnM6IgoJZXdhcm4gIlBHREFUQUJBU0UgKGRlZmF1bHQ6IHVz ZXJuYW1lLCBwcm9iYWJseSByb290KSIKCWV3YXJuICJQR0hPU1QgKGRlZmF1bHQ6IGxvY2FsaG9z dCkiCglld2FybiAiUEdQT1JUIChkZWZhdWx0OiBwZydzIFVOSVggZG9tYWluLXNvY2tldCkiCgll d2FybiAiUEdVU0VSIChkZWZhdWx0OiB1c2VybmFtZSwgcHJvYmFibHkgcm9vdCkiCgllcGF1c2Ug MTAKCglpZiBbWyAtbiAke1BHREFUQUJBU0V9IF1dIDsgdGhlbgoJCWNkICIke1N9L3Rlc3QiCgkJ IyBXb3JraW5nIGFyb3VuZCBhIG15c3RlcmlvdXMgYnVnIGluIGdjYy00LjEKCQlzZWQgLWkgLWUg J3MvLU8yLy1PMS8nIE1ha2VmaWxlCgkJZW1ha2UgLWoxIGNoZWNrIHx8IGRpZSAiZW1ha2UgY2hl Y2sgZmFpbGVkIgoJZWxzZQoJCWV3YXJuICJUZXN0cyBza2lwcGVkIHNpbmNlIFBHREFUQUJBU0Ug aXMgbm90IGRlZmluZWQgb3IgZW1wdHkiCglmaQp9Cg==