!!! The following installed packages are masked: - sys-devel/binutils-hppa64-2.30-r4::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>, Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>, # Matthias Maier <tamiko@gentoo.org> (21 May 2017 and later updates) # These old versions of toolchain packages (binutils, gcc, glibc) are no # longer officially supported and are not suitable for general use. Using # these packages can result in build failures (and possible breakage) for # many packages, and may leave your system vulnerable to known security # exploits. # If you still use one of these old toolchain packages, please upgrade (and # switch the compiler / the binutils) ASAP. If you need them for a specific # (isolated) use case, feel free to unmask them on your system. - sys-libs/binutils-libs-2.30-r4::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. Keywords for sys-devel/binutils-hppa64: | a a a a i p p x h m s s s a m x | e u s | r | l m r r a p p 8 p 6 3 h p m i 8 | a n l | e | p d m m 6 c c 6 p 8 9 a d p 6 | p u o | p | h 6 6 4 6 a k 0 r 6 s | | i s t | o | a 4 4 4 c 4 f | e | | | b | d | | f s | | | b d | | | s | | | d | | -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.25.1 | * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * | 4 o 2.25.1 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.26.1 | * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * | 5 o 2.26.1 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.27 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 5 o 2.27 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.28 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 5 o 2.28 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.28.1 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 5 o 2.28.1 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.29 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 5 o 2.29 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.29.1 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 5 # 2.29.1 | gentoo [M]2.29.1-r1 | * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * | 5 o | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- [M]2.30-r4 | * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * | 6 o 2.30 | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- 2.31.1-r4 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 6 # 2.31 | gentoo 2.31.1-r6 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 6 o | gentoo -------------+---------------------------------+------------+------- 2.32-r1 | * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * | 6 o 2.32 | gentoo
commit 894e4f2719e94cdfbb639dbaffbcec1433d206bb Author: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> Date: Mon Apr 29 01:58:37 2019 +0200 package.mask: Mask <sys-devel/binutils-2.31.1-r4 and friends Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/623566 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/676460 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/682702 Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Not my problem, hppa is not a stable arch anymore.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #2) > Not my problem It's a very disheartening attitude. > hppa is not a stable arch anymore. The package has stable keywords to have base system working on hppa. "stable arch" is not a well-defined term. hppa does have stable keywords, uses it as a definition of stage3 and would like to retain those without causing much burden on other maintainers.
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3) > (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #2) > > Not my problem > > It's a very disheartening attitude. > > > hppa is not a stable arch anymore. > > The package has stable keywords to have base system working on hppa. "stable > arch" is not a well-defined term. > > hppa does have stable keywords, uses it as a definition of stage3 and would > like to retain those without causing much burden on other maintainers. The whole point of "demoting" hppa was that it doesnt keep up others anymore. You and dakon have done a great job, but imho until that council decision is overturned masking old versions (with open sec bugs) has precedence.
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #4) > (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3) > > (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #2) > > > Not my problem > > > > It's a very disheartening attitude. > > > > > hppa is not a stable arch anymore. > > > > The package has stable keywords to have base system working on hppa. "stable > > arch" is not a well-defined term. > > > > hppa does have stable keywords, uses it as a definition of stage3 and would > > like to retain those without causing much burden on other maintainers. > > The whole point of "demoting" hppa was that it doesnt keep up others anymore. > You and dakon have done a great job, but imho until that council decision is > overturned masking old versions (with open sec bugs) has precedence. To clarify: this bug is not about changing how packages are managed by maintainers. As a maintainer do whatever you need to mask/delete packages regardless of hppa@ progress. This bug is about restoring a package for hppa. Whatever it means for hppa@ team: stable/test new version, tweak masks or start using ~hppa as a default setting. Closing the bug as a WONTFIX does not help achieving that goal. Reassigning to hppa@ would be more productive.
Fixed by jer as: commit 31766952684f872fb118d5bb0c36c63891de841a Author: Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> Date: Mon Apr 29 12:09:04 2019 +0200 sys-devel/binutils-hppa64: Stable for HPPA too.
