Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 136668

Summary: Pikdev ebuild outdated - source not availiable anymore
Product: Gentoo Linux Reporter: Renato Caldas <seventhguardian>
Component: New packagesAssignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers>
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE    
Severity: normal    
Priority: High    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Description Renato Caldas 2006-06-13 09:03:02 UTC
All current pikdev ebuilds (6.6a,7.1,7.1-r1,7.1-r2) are outdated, as the source isn't availiable anymore.

These ebuilds rely on the developer's site to host the files, but the developer has removed them. Only recent versions of the software are availiable, but there still isn't an ebuild for them.

So the logical solution for now is to remove the outdated ebuilds, as they are useless. In the future, the new versions (already on bugzilla) should be added to portage.
Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-06-13 09:04:36 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110496 ***
Comment 2 Renato Caldas 2006-06-13 09:06:58 UTC
Sorry, didn't see the original bug (was marked "solved"..). You got to this first. I'll reopen the original one.
Comment 3 Renato Caldas 2006-06-13 09:09:13 UTC
No, this isn't a dup of bug 110496, it is a dup of 132368.

Please read the reports carefuly next time!
Comment 4 Renato Caldas 2006-06-13 09:09:35 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 132368 ***
Comment 5 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-06-13 09:26:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Please read the reports carefuly next time!

Sure, complaining about outdated ebuild definitely isn't a dupe of request for version bump. Pretty obvious. 

Closing.


Comment 6 Renato Caldas 2006-06-13 10:55:06 UTC
Not trying to start a flame war, I didn't "complain about outdated ebuild". I reported that the current ebuilds don't have the source availiable for download. That _is_ a different thing, even if the summary sugests it's not.

Otherwise, why would I start a new thread when I had already replied to the one requesting a version bump? Anyway, bug 132368 was never marked as a dup of bug 110496, so it's clearly not the same thing.