Summary: | =dev-perl/Cairo-1.103.0: please stabilize | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Kent Fredric (IRC: kent\n) (RETIRED) <kentnl> |
Component: | [OLD] Keywording and Stabilization | Assignee: | Gentoo Perl team <perl> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=75260 | ||
Whiteboard: | WAS: dev-perl/Cairo-1.90.0 with dev-lang/perl-5.14.2 - Failed 1/8 test programs. 6/270 subtests failed. | ||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Kent Fredric (IRC: kent\n) (RETIRED)
![]() Did we ever had =x11-libs/cairo-1.11.2 in the tree? Which combination fails? I have =dev-lang/perl-5.14.2-r1 # from ::perl-experimental =dev-perl/Cairo-1.90.0 =x11-libs/cairo-1.10.2-r1 installed and the tests do not fail. The question is: Do we want to stabilize =dev-perl/Cairo-1.90.0. I guess this version is as good as any other version wrt the test failure described in this bug? Update: Retried with: =dev-lang/perl-5.16.3 =x11-libs/cairo-1.12.14-r4 Still fails the same way. Upstream have this filed under "Old Cairo". However, testing confirms =dev-perl/Cairo-1.102.0 passes tests satisfactorily. 1.102.0 has been in tree for over a year. 1.103.0 has been in tree for 11 months. Lets stabilize =dev-perl/Cairo-1.103.0 and drop old then. Arches, go ahead. Stable for HPPA. amd64 stable x86 stable ppc stable ppc64 stable alpha stable sparc stable ia64 stable, closed. |