Summary: | eix (<=app-portage/eix-0.2.1) and default-linux/x86/2005.0 (cascading issues) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Octavio Ruiz (Ta^3) <tacvbo> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Benedikt Böhm (RETIRED) <hollow> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | emilbeinroth, yselkowitz |
Priority: | Highest | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
URL: | http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1158073&group_id=128101&atid=710608 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Octavio Ruiz (Ta^3)
2005-03-07 20:09:59 UTC
Seems that It's fixed on CVS.. patch needed? a new version will be released in the next few days i.e. i will not update the older one(s) Here's a problem with this buzilla page. Try searching bugzilla for eix, it won't return any bugs. So I couldn't find this bug until someone gave me the bug number. How do you correct that? If you are searching with "Find a Specific Bug" you need to set the "Status:"-field to "ALL" .. this bug is closed, so it won't show up if you search for "Open" :) This is a big problem now that 2005.0 is officially out. If you won't fix 0.2.1 (currently the lastest stable version on x86), then I think that a version that *does* work needs to be bumped to stable. >> i will not update the older one(s)
Ok, don't update them :-). But al least I think 0.2.2 should be on stable KEYWORD.
I did not notice that cos' i'm on testing and (~x86 and ~amd64) but with 2005.0 out, this (again, IMHO) bug should be reopened until <=0.2.1 are removed from tree , patched or mark >=0.2.2 stable.
i can't bump 0.2.2 to stable for policy reasons (30 days bug-less blah blah) I'm not a dev, but is keeping what is now a broken package in stable *really* according to policy? Looking at the dev handbook, the one-month "rule" doesn't appear to be absolute (emphasis mine): > *An* indication of the package's stability would be no verified or unresolved > bug report for a month after the version's introduction. But in the end: > It is up to the maintainer of the package to deem which versions are stable > or if development versions should be in package.mask or left in ~arch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't discretion indicate that there's reason for an accelerated update when a package becomes broken due to a new profile? Especially since AFAICS eix really shouldn't break anything else. Again, I'm not a dev, but these are my $0.02. 0.2.2 is now stable :-) |