rosegarden versionning is broken : # earch rosegarden rosegarden-1.2.4[0]: rosegarden-1.4.0[0]: ~amd64 ~ppc ~x86 rosegarden-4.1.0-r1[0]: rosegarden-4.1.0-r2[0]: amd64 ppc x86 upstream dropped 4 as major version, you can see at : http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=4932&package_id=4959 that 1.4.0 is *newer* than 4.1.0 so, I can see only one solution there : p.mask 4.1.0 and remove it. but the problem is that it has stable keywords. So I'm asking you arch teams : what would you prefer ? you can either drop stable keywords and I'll ask you later on to stabilize a newer version or mark stable 1.4.0 if it is ok for you. Note that most of ~arch users may have been using 4.1.0 and 1.4.0 is probably not well tested. If that was up to me I'd say drop stable and stabilize it later since nothing depends on it, but after all that's up to you to decide that. So if you decide to drop stable please set 4.1.0 keyword to ~arch, and if you decide to go for stable please mark 1.4.0 as stable so I'll be able to mask & remove 4.1.0 without dropping any keyword Any better idea is welcome.
Well, dropping stable keywords doesn't do any good, you need to -arch it for anyone to be able to pick up the right version without specifying it on command line.
(In reply to comment #1) > Well, dropping stable keywords doesn't do any good, you need to -arch it for > anyone to be able to pick up the right version without specifying it on command > line. That's what p.mask and then removal is supposed to do... am I missing something ?
(In reply to comment #0) > that 1.4.0 is *newer* than 4.1.0 Kick upstream from us, please. > so, I can see only one solution there : p.mask 4.1.0 and remove it. > but the problem is that it has stable keywords. > So I'm asking you arch teams : what would you prefer ? We need some testing. Maybe you should p.mask rosegarden 4 (drop stable keywords) and wait about two weeks for testing. Then we can stable prematurely. Assumed: There are no packages depending on rosegarden.
> We need some testing. Maybe you should p.mask rosegarden 4 (drop stable > keywords) and wait about two weeks for testing. Then we can stable > prematurely. Assumed: There are no packages depending on rosegarden. Ok, thanks, I prefer that way. I'll wait a bit before doing that, just to leave time to other arch teams to say they disagree if they do.
Upstream changed its versioning and we have to follow (or better said fortunately we can as there's no GLSA we'd conflit with doing so). Heck, I even added a postinstall message to the latest 4.x ebuilds, so interested users can test. Wouldn't call that broken and it's also not a blocker to add a new version. I'd say 1.4.0 can go stable now and once it is on all architectures, the 4.x ebuilds can be removed from the tree.
(In reply to comment #5) > Upstream changed its versioning and we have to follow (or better said > fortunately we can as there's no GLSA we'd conflit with doing so). Heck, I even > added a postinstall message to the latest 4.x ebuilds, so interested users can > test. Wouldn't call that broken Yep it's not broken in that sense, ebuilds are fine but upstream changing its versionnning scheme gives us pain :/ > and it's also not a blocker to add a new > version. I had set it like that because I thought it's more important to have a sane handling of the package by portage than bumping a new version. (and you're right it's not a blocker stricto senso) > I'd say 1.4.0 can go stable now and once it is on all architectures, the 4.x > ebuilds can be removed from the tree. fine (btw I'm the one to blame there, I tried to contact you on irc but I could have tried mailing you to know what you think about this as you were more or less the only one who took care about rosegarden lately) Then lets go for stable ;)
x86 stable
ppc stable
(In reply to comment #6) > (btw I'm the one to blame there, I tried to contact you on irc but I could > have tried mailing you to know what you think about this as you were more or > less the only one who took care about rosegarden lately) Uh, if there's someone to blame, that's me being more or less inactive the past months. Chances are I had missed you email.
amd64 stable and closing
