| Summary: | x11-libs/libxcb-1.11.1: fails to build with x11-proto/xcb-proto-1.12-r2, works with x11-proto/xcb-proto-1.11 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Austin English (RETIRED) <wizardedit> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo X packagers <x11> |
| Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | Keywords: | REGRESSION |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=650226 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Austin English (RETIRED)
2016-10-05 17:46:28 UTC
I don't disagree yet that this is something we should improve on if necessary with some dep locking, but curious - why are you mixing package visibility here? (In reply to Mart Raudsepp from comment #1) > I don't disagree yet that this is something we should improve on if > necessary with some dep locking, but curious - why are you mixing package > visibility here? Internally we have several profiles/features, and xcb (X11 in general) are masked. I noticed this on a profile with it unmasked. I think the unmasking could be tweaked to avoid this, which I'm looking at, but wanted to report the issue in case it affects others. (In reply to Austin English from comment #2) > (In reply to Mart Raudsepp from comment #1) > > I don't disagree yet that this is something we should improve on if > > necessary with some dep locking, but curious - why are you mixing package > > visibility here? > > Internally we have several profiles/features, and xcb (X11 in general) are > masked. I noticed this on a profile with it unmasked. > > I think the unmasking could be tweaked to avoid this, which I'm looking at, > but wanted to report the issue in case it affects others. For reference, installing 1.12 versions of both works: x11-libs/libxcb-1.12 x11-proto/xcb-proto-1.12-r2 libxcb-1.11 and xcb-proto-1.11 are no longer in the tree. |