dev-java/jdom is currently slotted on ${PV} which is not good and it even doesn't seem to be correct. I just compared jdom-1.0_beta9-r1 and jdom-1.0 and according to apicheck they are 100% compatible so there is no need to have two slots: 1.0_beta9 and jdom-1.0. Few packages are depending on jdom so it would be good to move those that depend on slot 1.0_beta9 to slot jdom-1.0 and get rid of the beta9 and beta10 jdom as 1.0 is already stable.
I agree, I don't see why this slot madness. Note that 1.0 isn't stable ppc64, not even ~ppc64 although at least jaxen (depending on jdom) already is... so we need to get this fixed first.
(In reply to comment #1) > I agree, I don't see why this slot madness. > Note that 1.0 isn't stable ppc64, not even ~ppc64 although at least jaxen > (depending on jdom) already is... so we need to get this fixed first. > We could use this opportunity to get gen 2 version 1.0-r2 stable. I just added r2: *jdom-1.0-r2 (07 Jan 2007) 07 Jan 2007; Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> +jdom-1.0-r2.ebuild: Changed javadocs to install to standard location and add missing app-arch/zip DEPEND for the source use flag. If you are not confortable with this, go with 1.0-r1, but then we should add the missing dep there. It will likely take a while before ppc64 gets 1.0* stable as it is not even ~arch there now.
x86 jdominates!
jdom-1.0-r2 stable on ppc64. I doubt that anybody would have tested this any further in a four weeks period it's ~ppc64. Note that I've stabilized commons-beanutils-1.6.1-r3, commons-beanutils-1.7.0-r2 and commons-lang-2.0-r2, too, because previous stable versions didn't compile and the only change according to the changelog was gen-2 compatibility.
amd64 stable
ppc stable
Closing since we're the last arch. Thanks to ndansmith for testing.
