Summary: | app-backup/duplicity-0.8.12.1612-r1 stabilisation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm> |
Component: | Stabilization | Assignee: | Richard Freeman <rich0> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | alexander, gentoo, sam |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | CC-ARCHES, STABLEREQ |
Version: | unspecified | Flags: | nattka:
sanity-check+
|
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: |
app-backup/duplicity-0.8.12.1612-r1
|
Runtime testing required: | --- |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 721752 |
Description
Andreas Sturmlechner
2020-05-07 10:43:39 UTC
FYI, I am giving this another day or two as I just revbumped this version to fix some python3 issues. It would make more sense to stabilize -r1 than this version - but I'd like it to remain in ~arch for at least a day or two before going to stable. Entirely your decision, but keep in mind current version presents a default conflict to users since base make.defaults moved to python3_7. @maintainer(s), if no objections, I'll stable this on Sunday if not already done? Assuming it works on an arch that is fine. I just didn't want to push a revbump straight to stable but I'm already getting good reports on the bump. The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b036cdec177c998c5e2b6df2cacff8363b467df7 commit b036cdec177c998c5e2b6df2cacff8363b467df7 Author: Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2020-05-09 14:54:52 +0000 Commit: Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2020-05-09 14:54:52 +0000 app-backup/duplicity: amd64 stable Stabilizing revbump <30d due to python USE default changes, and last-minute fix for python3 issues in previous revision. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/721432 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.99, Repoman-2.3.22 Signed-off-by: Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> app-backup/duplicity/duplicity-0.8.12.1612-r1.ebuild | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (In reply to Richard Freeman from comment #4) > Assuming it works on an arch that is fine. I just didn't want to push a > revbump straight to stable but I'm already getting good reports on the bump. Cool. Yeah, that's fair enough! x86 stable. Closing. |