Bug 191624 – Dropped keywords for net-firewall/shorewall-4.0

• Status: RESOLVED LATER
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 19:57:22 UTC]

A few days ago, net-firewall/shorewall-4.0 was added to the tree. Sadly, it lost its keywords for alpha, hppa, mips, ppc64 and sparc and no one bothered to alert the arch teams, so luckily bug #191475 came around to make me look at net-firewall/shorewall again, so I ask arch teams in netmon's stead to please [re-]keyword
   >=net-firewall/shorewall-common-4.0
    =net-firewall/shorewall-4.0

[Comment 1 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 20:03:00 UTC]

Oh, it occurs to me now that three new packages should be used (and keyworded) instead of net-firewall/shorewall:

=net-firewall/shorewall-{common,shell,perl}-4.0.3

[Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 20:23:27 UTC]

s|days ago|hours ago|g

Sorry about that jokey.

[Comment 3 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 20:25:56 UTC]

was intended as the code was major rewrite and we wanted to have it settle in
~arch for major arches first.

Though when you're at it now, you can start rekeyword :)

[Comment 4 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 20:27:19 UTC]

Marked ~hppa:
  net-firewall/shorewall-4.0
  net-firewall/shorewall-common-4.0.3
  net-firewall/shorewall-perl-4.0.3
  net-firewall/shorewall-shell-4.0.3

[Comment 5 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 20:29:41 UTC]

(In reply to comment #3)
> was intended as the code was major rewrite and we wanted to have it settle in
> ~arch for major arches first.

Why on Earth would you assume minor arches wouldn't see any problems. With human resources divided as they are now, minor arches do a lot more QA than you'd expect, relatively speaking, and notifying them early on is more than just common courtesy.

[Comment 6 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) 2007-09-07 21:09:12 UTC]

Last time I did it that way (and bugs arised) I was told by them to let it first settle a bit then file rekeyword bug. Apparently all think different on it :x

[Comment 7 Joe Jezak (RETIRED) 2007-09-09 14:51:33 UTC]

Re-keyworded for ~ppc/~ppc64.

[Comment 8 Raúl Porcel (RETIRED) 2007-09-09 16:34:07 UTC]

~alpha done, thanks Tobias

[Comment 9 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2007-09-09 19:36:06 UTC]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Marked ~hppa:
>   net-firewall/shorewall-4.0
>   net-firewall/shorewall-common-4.0.3
>   net-firewall/shorewall-perl-4.0.3
>   net-firewall/shorewall-shell-4.0.3
    net-firewall/shorewall-lite-4.0.3

[Comment 10 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto (RETIRED) 2007-09-14 04:03:21 UTC]

I've tested shorewall-4.0, shorewall-common-4.0.3, shorewall-lite-4.0.3, shorewall-perl-4.0.3 and shorewall-shell-4.0.3 here on my sparc64 and all emerged fine without errors - the packages have no tests.
I can't test shorewall at this time as I need to include iptables support on the kernel and I haven't been able to update to the 2.6.22 kernel yet.

[Comment 11 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto (RETIRED) 2007-09-14 04:04:41 UTC]

Created attachment 130889 [details]
sparc64-emerge-info

emerge --info for the sparc64

[Comment 12 Ferris McCormick (RETIRED) 2007-09-14 12:12:57 UTC]

Marked ~sparc
  net-firewall/shorewall-4.0
              /shorewall-common-4.0.3
              /shorewall-shell-4.0.3
              /shorewall-lite-4.0.3
              /shorewall-perl-4.0.3

Fix trivial typo in net-shorewall.shorewall-perl-4.0.3.ebuild --- it has a
DEPEND on !<et-firewall/shorewall-4.0 --- should be !<net-firewall/shorewall-4.0 if that DEPEND is to make sense.

[Comment 13 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) 2007-09-14 14:53:37 UTC]

uhm, yep, you won ferris ;)

[Comment 14 Markus Ullmann (RETIRED) 2008-01-05 20:22:14 UTC]

Will continue later