Summary: | www-plugins/google-talkplugin-5.4.2.0: source no longer available, please stabilize 5.41.0.0 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Raymond Jennings <shentino> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Christoph Junghans (RETIRED) <junghans> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | desktop-misc |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Raymond Jennings
2016-09-20 16:57:59 UTC
The latest (google-talkplugin-5.41.3.0) is already in the tree for a month. commit dd3f3f9c6cb37d8e6b8e11277e25bd8805fd778b Author: Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> Date: Sun Aug 21 15:04:04 2016 -0600 www-plugins/google-talkplugin: version bump Package-Manager: portage-2.2.28 I wanted to move away from a stable version for a long time: commit 1a6a95ab5a60af6b769d388eec9a4017a7c4c161 Author: Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> Date: Tue Sep 20 18:21:19 2016 -0600 profiles: mask stable google-talkplugin diff --git a/profiles/package.mask b/profiles/package.mask index 9f8ff47..4e7af5e 100644 --- a/profiles/package.mask +++ b/profiles/package.mask @@ -30,6 +30,11 @@ #--- END OF EXAMPLES --- +# Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> (20 Sep 2016) +# Switch to a non-stable scheme following google-chrome +# please unmask latest version yourself +=www-plugins/google-talkplugin-5.4.2.0 + # Gnome Team <gnome@gentoo.org> (19 sep 2016) # Gnome 3.22 mask >=dev-util/gdbus-codegen-2.50.0 Why do we want to leave google-talkplugin masked? It's not exactly unbuildable or buggy. (In reply to Raymond Jennings from comment #3) > Why do we want to leave google-talkplugin masked? > > It's not exactly unbuildable or buggy. I masked it, so that users of the stable version get notified of the change, which would not be the case if I just dropped the old versions, which is going to happen in 30 days or so. Why not just stabilize it regularly like any other package? (In reply to Raymond Jennings from comment #5) > Why not just stabilize it regularly like any other package? Just look at bug #506676 and you will understand why. Google can sneak away the package source at any time and we cannot mirror it, so I think it is not worth the effort. |