no regressions ppc: straight to stable, please
Requires dev-lang/vala? Any suggestions on which version to stabilize?
Stable for HPPA.
Readded. Which version of vala?
vala does not seems to be used in the compilation process so any slot should be ok. I'd advise using slot 0 for now.
Created attachment 252469 [details] build.log 0.9.3 fails tests for am64
there is a bug report for that, it needs a more recent glib that is masked.
Archtested on x86: Everything fine
(In reply to comment #7) > Archtested on x86: Everything fine > I installed dev-lang/vala-0.10.1 for testing
Diego, can you please test this package in your tinderbox so we can check if any packages will break with the drop of the .la files caused by the move to cmake? Looking at http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/net-libs/libproxy I wonder if we're going to get any breakage.
(In reply to comment #9) > Diego, can you please test this package in your tinderbox so we can check if > any packages will break with the drop of the .la files caused by the move to > cmake? I belive tinderbox is using forced asneeded, as well as running ~arch so this option likely not viable way to check anything. > Looking at http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/net-libs/libproxy I > wonder if we're going to get any breakage. > Anything that's using libsoup-gnome has inherited libproxy.la from libsoup-gnome's .la file: http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/net-libs/libsoup-gnome And the chain continues, anything from above list that has inherited .la file from their .la file will It's no different than dbus upgrade, users have to run `lafilefixer` once. Only this time it's upstream that drops the .la files, not us, but that's irrelevant due to previously explained reasons.
+*libproxy-0.4.6-r1 (02 Nov 2010) + + 02 Nov 2010; Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> libproxy-0.4.6.ebuild, + +libproxy-0.4.6-r1.ebuild: + Disable dev-lang/vala support because it's not ready to be stabilized wrt + #343737. so vala doesn't block the stabilization anymore
ppc64 stable
Stable for PPC.
amd64 done
I reverted my commit. I will wait for tinderbox
tinderbox won't do you any good, Samuli said it all. Beside, as he said, I _never test stable_ but always unstable.
Stable on alpha
amd64 stable
On x86 I get a bunch of these after stripping: scanelf: rpath_security_checks(): Maybe? sec problem with DT_RPATH='lib:/usr/lib/xulrunner-devel-1.9.2/lib' in /var/tmp/portage/net-libs/libproxy-0.4.6/image/usr/lib/libproxy/0.4.6/modules/config_gnome.so The come in bright red and yellow colors... ?
this doesn't compile for me. I think it's a problem with xulrunner beta. build.log attached.
Created attachment 258872 [details] build.log
search first (bug 342787) and don't comment on unrelated bugs. xulrunner beta compilation failures are mostly not even relevant to ~ərch yet...
arm/sparc done
kde use masked on arm, because kdelibs isn't stable on arm
x86 stable
ia64/sh stable, closing
