Summary: | dev-perl/net-server-0.93 causes amavisd to break | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Jeremy Huddleston (RETIRED) <eradicator> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo Perl team <perl> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | dermarc, jakub, mathieu.alorent, net-mail+disabled |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Other | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Jeremy Huddleston (RETIRED)
2006-04-07 11:52:52 UTC
That's a collateral damage from bugs #128698, #128710, and the fact that I temporarily didn't have commit access after the latter has been resolved. Sorry about that. I've changed amavisd-new-2.3.3-r2 to depend on <=net-server-0.90, and will be adding 2.4.0 tonight. (In reply to comment #1) > I've changed amavisd-new-2.3.3-r2 to depend on <=net-server-0.90, and will be > adding 2.4.0 tonight. Don't want to disappoint you, but that simply doesn't work (Bug 48195). The only workaround is to add mutual blockers to both ebuilds. Deps like <=net-server-0.90 just result in perpetual upgrade/downgrade cycle. (In reply to comment #2) > > Deps like <=net-server-0.90 just result in perpetual upgrade/downgrade cycle. > got proof ? amavisd-new-2.3.3-r2 and net-server-0.88 are both stable on most arches. How does one get upgrade/downgrade cycle ( without mixing arch and ~arch )? (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > Deps like <=net-server-0.90 just result in perpetual upgrade/downgrade cycle. > > > > got proof ? Sure, read the bug referenced above. > amavisd-new-2.3.3-r2 and net-server-0.88 are both stable on most > arches. How does one get upgrade/downgrade cycle ( without mixing arch and > ~arch )? Well, that's what this bug is about, isn't it? :) Even if not mixing arch and ~arch, you'll get that cycle as soon as >net-server-0.90 gets keyworded stable (pretty likely noone will know about this bug when keywording it). All that I'm saying here is that <= deps don't work and are not honored by portage correctly. If your opinion is that bugs you get when mixing arch and ~arch are invalid, there's no point in fixing this one. Otherwise, the solution is to block >net-server-0.90 in <amavisd-new-2.4* ebuilds and to block <amavisd-new-2.4* in >net-server-0.90 ebuilds (that way net-server maintainer can also notice that it shouldn't be marked stable until amavisd-new-2.4 gets stable). Blocking net-server in amavisd-new makes no sense, since repoman doesn't care about amavisd-new when checking it (in case net-server gets stable keywords). Depend atoms in amavisd-new are like this: amavisd-new-2.3.3-r2.ebuild: <=dev-perl/net-server-0.90 amavisd-new-2.4.0.ebuild: >=dev-perl/net-server-0.91 I don't know if perl guys want to add amavisd-new blocker to net-server ebuilds. (In reply to comment #4) > Well, that's what this bug is about, isn't it? :) Even if not mixing arch and > ~arch, you'll get that cycle as soon as >net-server-0.90 gets keyworded stable > (pretty likely noone will know about this bug when keywording it). All that I'm > saying here is that <= deps don't work and are not honored by portage > correctly. > > If your opinion is that bugs you get when mixing arch and ~arch are invalid, if one know how to use ~arch version of net-server and arch version of amavisd-new, I think he/she knows to handle the {up,down}grade thing. > there's no point in fixing this one. Otherwise, the solution is to block > >net-server-0.90 in <amavisd-new-2.4* ebuilds and to block <amavisd-new-2.4* in > >net-server-0.90 ebuilds (that way net-server maintainer can also notice that > it shouldn't be marked stable until amavisd-new-2.4 gets stable). > or we file a bug block any future stable marking net-server-0.90. Ebuild blocking start getting very annoying IMO. since most likely net-server will get bumped stable ignorant of this blocker (and i can say that because i'll probably forget about it after this post) what work is being done to fix amavisd? I believe there's nothing more to be done on amavisd-new side, apart from dep atoms mentioned in comment #5. *** Bug 144095 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 145378 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |