Home | Docs | Forums | Lists | Bugs | Planet | Store | GMN | Get Gentoo!

Full Text Bug Listing

O.k. this is a bit more complicated. This is not only the request to mark
stable, but also a change in version numbering. So please mark

>=qscintilla-1.54 testing ( the ebuilds will be removed later )


Also to be marked stable (as you're affected)

dev-python/sip-4.2.1
dev-python/PyQt-3.14.1-r1
app-editors/cute-0.2.9-r2
dev-util/eric-3.7.2-r1


Thanks everyone. :)

Do you really want us to downgrade >=1.54 to testing? Most arches (all except
ppc and x86) don't have anything <1.54 stable.. Or did you mean >1.54?

i just realized that i probably should read the title of a bug before asking
dumb questions.. sorry for the bugspam :D

amd64 done

Before I go off and do this, let me make sure I understand correctly.  The
current setup is like so:

qscintilla-1.5.1.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~ia64 ppc ~ppc64 ~sparc x86"
qscintilla-1.54.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ia64 amd64"
qscintilla-1.6.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~alpha ~amd64 ~ia64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~sparc ~x86"
qscintilla-1.60.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ~ia64 amd64"
qscintilla-1.61.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ia64 amd64 ppc64"
qscintilla-1.65.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc ~alpha ~ia64 ~amd64 ppc64"

1.5.1 is actually newer than 1.54, but because of the way portage handles
version-ing, 1.54 will show up as newer.  So you want us to mark
1.{54,6,60,61,65) as ~arch and 1.5.1 as stable so the versioning happens
properly.  Then once that's done 1.{54,60,61,65} will be removed leaving 1.5.1
as stable, and 1.6 as unstable.  This all sound right?

Chris: Re comment #4:

Your statement is correct, but this may be an easier way to understand the
situation:

Scintilla 1.54 was used in QScintilla 1.2
Scintilla 1.60 was used in QScintilla 1.3
Scintilla 1.61 was used in QScintilla 1.4
Scintilla 1.62 was used in QScintilla 1.5.1
Scintilla 1.65 was used in QScintilla 1.6

Therefore, the two latest versions of QScintilla are 1.5.1 and 1.6. QScintilla
1.5.1 is actually newer than Scintilla 1.54, 1.60 and 1.61. QScintilla 1.6 is
the same vintage as Scintilla 1.65.

When the dust settles, we'll be left with QScintilla 1.5.1 (stable) and
QScintilla 1.6 (testing).

Yes and yes.

I have to add media-sound/albumart-1.5.0-r1 to the list. Please mark it stable
a well. (:

x86 stable on all, couple of things onced I produced the described setup:

PyQt-3.8.1 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since
PyQt-3.14.1-r1 was stable anyways.

cute-0.2.9 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since
cute-0.2.9-r2 was stable anyways.

eric-3.5.1 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since
eric-3.7.2-r1 was stable anyways.

albumart-1.5.0-r1 stable on amd64

sparc is done, hope i didn't miss anything ;)

qscintilla-1.5.1 was already stable on ppc
albumart-1.5.0-r1 marked stable on ppc now

With respect to alpha, we have:

qscintilla-1.54 is stable (all other versions marked testing)

dev-python/sip-4.2.1 and dev-python/PyQt-3.14.1-r1 are now stable too. No more
packages were affected by the update in alpha.

ppc64 done

If you could spend some ia64 cycles, please!? I'd like to clean up the mess. :)

Fixed on AMD64

alpha and ia64 are finally fixed up.  Yoswink had fixed up qscintilla earlier
for alpha, but then I came through and broke things because I misunderstood. 
Sorry about that!

based on the cc list, I think this can be closed now

Re: Comment #17: Aron, looking at CVS, I think this isn't quite fixed: Versions
of qscintilla > 1.6 are still marked stable on PPC. These must be marked
unstable. Then, all qscintilla ebuilds > 1.6 must be removed.

Thanks Howard, it looks like the ppc team was missed somewhere along the line

I cleaned up yesterday, so this is not an issue anymore.