| Summary: | app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat removal request | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Pacho Ramos <pacho> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Multilib team <multilib+disabled> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | jb.faq, treecleaner |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | Pending removal: 2014-10-10 | ||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | 522218 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Pacho Ramos
2014-07-24 07:51:27 UTC
(In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #0) > But I am not sure if we would need to stabilize latest lib-compat > (all this stuff was hardmasked due security reasons) Either that, or drop all its reverse dependencies to unstable. I don't think that we have a policy for this sort of situation. Stabilising lib-compat and lib-compat-loki would be easier, but do we want them in stable? I've discussed this with the QA lead. Stabilising a masked package seems pointless, therefore I'll drop lib-compat and its reverse dependencies (which are all package.masked already) to unstable. CCing maintainers. (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #2) > I'll drop lib-compat and its reverse dependencies (which are all > package.masked already) to unstable. Done. All reverse dependencies fixed: http://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/genrdeps/rindex/app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat So emul-linux-x86-compat can be masked for removal. Last rites sent. # Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> (10 Sep 2014) # Multiple security vulnerabilities, bug #510960. # Masked for removal in 30 days, bug #517932. app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-compat Package removed. |