Summary: | net-mail/imapsync-1.(182|255): broken since dev-perl/Mail-IMAPClient-3.xx | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Aurélien Requiem <bugs> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Net-Mail Packages <net-mail+disabled> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | major | CC: | armin76, lavajoe, perl |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Aurélien Requiem
2008-07-18 23:30:12 UTC
Note that a revbump of the imapsync-1.255 ebuild changing one line will fix this:
24c24
< >=dev-perl/Mail-IMAPClient-2.1.4"
---
> =dev-perl/Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9"
Raúl: Why did you mark the Mail-IMAPClient version stable? There's no stabilization bug, I don't see that we had a second pair of eyes looking, if stabilization is fine. (In reply to comment #1) > Note that a revbump of the imapsync-1.255 ebuild changing one line will fix > this: No, it doesn't. It's stable tree breakage. Even if the newer Mail-IMAPClient were *not* marked stable, this would break those who use the unstable Mail-IMAPClient. imapsync *mandates* a specific version, so the ebuild needs to specify that version exactly. Reverted to ~arch. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Note that a revbump of the imapsync-1.255 ebuild changing one line will fix > > this: > > No, it doesn't. It's stable tree breakage. > revbumped to -r1 with a fixed dep on "=dev-perl/Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9". As for the stable b0rkage we would need x86 to mark imapsync-1.255-r1 stable, cc'ing x86 therefore. 1.255 has been in portage for less than the usual month, do what you think is appropriate here. Thanks! (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Note that a revbump of the imapsync-1.255 ebuild changing one line will fix > > > this: > > > > No, it doesn't. It's stable tree breakage. > > > > revbumped to -r1 with a fixed dep on "=dev-perl/Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9". > > As for the stable b0rkage we would need x86 to mark imapsync-1.255-r1 stable, > cc'ing x86 therefore. 1.255 has been in portage for less than the usual month, > do what you think is appropriate here. Thanks! > Its not stable anymore :P No need to do anything here for x86 (In reply to comment #7) > Its not stable anymore :P No need to do anything here for x86 Any objections to close this one then? Nope |