O.k. this is a bit more complicated. This is not only the request to mark stable, but also a change in version numbering. So please mark >=qscintilla-1.54 testing ( the ebuilds will be removed later ) Also to be marked stable (as you're affected) dev-python/sip-4.2.1 dev-python/PyQt-3.14.1-r1 app-editors/cute-0.2.9-r2 dev-util/eric-3.7.2-r1 Thanks everyone. :)
Do you really want us to downgrade >=1.54 to testing? Most arches (all except ppc and x86) don't have anything <1.54 stable.. Or did you mean >1.54?
i just realized that i probably should read the title of a bug before asking dumb questions.. sorry for the bugspam :D
amd64 done
Before I go off and do this, let me make sure I understand correctly. The current setup is like so: qscintilla-1.5.1.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~alpha amd64 ~ia64 ppc ~ppc64 ~sparc x86" qscintilla-1.54.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ia64 amd64" qscintilla-1.6.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~alpha ~amd64 ~ia64 ~ppc ~ppc64 ~sparc ~x86" qscintilla-1.60.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ~ia64 amd64" qscintilla-1.61.ebuild:KEYWORDS="x86 ppc sparc alpha ia64 amd64 ppc64" qscintilla-1.65.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~x86 ~ppc ~sparc ~alpha ~ia64 ~amd64 ppc64" 1.5.1 is actually newer than 1.54, but because of the way portage handles version-ing, 1.54 will show up as newer. So you want us to mark 1.{54,6,60,61,65) as ~arch and 1.5.1 as stable so the versioning happens properly. Then once that's done 1.{54,60,61,65} will be removed leaving 1.5.1 as stable, and 1.6 as unstable. This all sound right?
Chris: Re comment #4: Your statement is correct, but this may be an easier way to understand the situation: Scintilla 1.54 was used in QScintilla 1.2 Scintilla 1.60 was used in QScintilla 1.3 Scintilla 1.61 was used in QScintilla 1.4 Scintilla 1.62 was used in QScintilla 1.5.1 Scintilla 1.65 was used in QScintilla 1.6 Therefore, the two latest versions of QScintilla are 1.5.1 and 1.6. QScintilla 1.5.1 is actually newer than Scintilla 1.54, 1.60 and 1.61. QScintilla 1.6 is the same vintage as Scintilla 1.65. When the dust settles, we'll be left with QScintilla 1.5.1 (stable) and QScintilla 1.6 (testing).
Yes and yes.
I have to add media-sound/albumart-1.5.0-r1 to the list. Please mark it stable a well. (:
x86 stable on all, couple of things onced I produced the described setup: PyQt-3.8.1 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since PyQt-3.14.1-r1 was stable anyways. cute-0.2.9 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since cute-0.2.9-r2 was stable anyways. eric-3.5.1 complained from repoman, had to drop x86 from that since eric-3.7.2-r1 was stable anyways.
albumart-1.5.0-r1 stable on amd64
sparc is done, hope i didn't miss anything ;)
qscintilla-1.5.1 was already stable on ppc albumart-1.5.0-r1 marked stable on ppc now
With respect to alpha, we have: qscintilla-1.54 is stable (all other versions marked testing) dev-python/sip-4.2.1 and dev-python/PyQt-3.14.1-r1 are now stable too. No more packages were affected by the update in alpha.
ppc64 done
If you could spend some ia64 cycles, please!? I'd like to clean up the mess. :)
Fixed on AMD64
alpha and ia64 are finally fixed up. Yoswink had fixed up qscintilla earlier for alpha, but then I came through and broke things because I misunderstood. Sorry about that!
based on the cc list, I think this can be closed now
Re: Comment #17: Aron, looking at CVS, I think this isn't quite fixed: Versions of qscintilla > 1.6 are still marked stable on PPC. These must be marked unstable. Then, all qscintilla ebuilds > 1.6 must be removed.
Thanks Howard, it looks like the ppc team was missed somewhere along the line
I cleaned up yesterday, so this is not an issue anymore.