19:58 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: I am talking putting atoms like sys-libs/glibc[ntpl] need to be fatal 19:58 <@zmedico> Betelgeuse: it should be already 19:58 <@zmedico> should result in DEPEND.bad 19:58 <@mraudsepp> zmedico: should I file a bug for http://dpaste.com/103542/ btw? 19:58 <@zmedico> mraudsepp: yes, please 19:59 <@rej> Bug #287939 says it's fatal. 19:59 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: http://dpaste.com/103547/ 19:59 <+Willikins> rej: https://bugs.gentoo.org/287939 "x11-drivers/nvidia-driver-180.60 sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2 conflict over nptl"; Gentoo Linux, Ebuilds; RESO, DUPL; mlspamcb@noci.xs4all.nl:bug-wranglers@g.o 19:59 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc40 19:59 <@zmedico> Betelgeuse: maybe you need to cvs up for glibc 20:00 <@Betelgeuse> [ebuild R ] sys-libs/glibc-2.10.1 USE="-debug -gd -glibc-omitfp (-hardened) (-multilib) -nls -profile (-selinux) -vanilla" 92 kB 20:00 <@rej> Bug #287938 says it isn't but that's portage-2.2 20:00 <+Willikins> rej: https://bugs.gentoo.org/287938 "nvidia-drivers now wants to downgrade to glibc-2.5 ..."; Gentoo Linux, Library; RESO, DUPL; alecm_88@yahoo.com:bug-wranglers@g.o 20:00 <@mraudsepp> rej: no, we are talking about repoman refusing to commit it in this case, not deptree resolving being fatal 20:01 <@zmedico> Betelgeuse: well, there seem to be some glibc ebuilds with nptl in IUSE still 20:01 <@mraudsepp> rej: (or at least when looking at the bug I'm only seeing emerge deptree resolving being fatal) 20:01 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: so the resolver will suggest a downgrade? 20:02 <@Betelgeuse> interesting 20:02 <@zmedico> yeah 20:02 <@Betelgeuse> Well I do emerge -pv before I commit so I am safe :) 20:02 <@mraudsepp> zmedico: btw, what all needs to be done to get a portage-2.2 final out the door? 20:02 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: I doubt that's PMS compliant 20:03 <@mraudsepp> zmedico: is there any tracker or goal towards that? 20:03 <@Betelgeuse> let me check 20:03 <@zmedico> mraudsepp: yeah, bug 253802 20:03 <+Willikins> zmedico: https://bugs.gentoo.org/253802 "Portage 2.2 is masked despite 2.1.6 being marked stable."; Portage Development, Core; NEW; neclimdul@gmail.com:dev-portage@g.o 20:03 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: It is an error for a flag to be used if it is not included in IUSE_EFFECTIVE as described in sec- 20:03 <@Betelgeuse> tion 12.1.1. 20:04 <@zmedico> mraudsepp: basically, quite a few open issues with package sets and preserve libs 20:04 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: I think repoman should warn if it matches any cpv where it's not in IUSE 20:04 <@mraudsepp> interesting fl in one glyph :) 20:04 <@Betelgeuse> mraudsepp: okular wins 20:05 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: To catch downgrades like this at least Downgrades are not usually wanted to repoman should have an error when it matches any cpv in tree where the use dep is not in IUSE.
20:09 <@zmedico> Betelgeuse: warn for downgrade only is ok right? (highest match has required IUSE) 20:10 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: warning for any is best as if any matches then the atom is not doing what the developer intended 20:10 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: The error message can suggest using >= 20:10 <@Betelgeuse> zmedico: for high enough
repoman support has been removed per bug 835013. Please file a new bug (or, I suppose, reopen this one) if you feel this check is still applicable to pkgcheck and doesn't already exist.
