This is necessary for seamonkey-2 p.mask removal Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 215958 [details, diff] gnome-python-extras-2.14.2-r1.ebuild.patch possible patch
This ebuild just needs to die anyway. We were just waiting on fbsd to support a more recent xulrunner to re-keyword split dependencies and drop this ebuild.
(In reply to comment #2) > This ebuild just needs to die anyway. We were just waiting on fbsd to support a > more recent xulrunner to re-keyword split dependencies and drop this ebuild. > This should then depend on bug 275807 , not?
This now becomes even more urgent. Upstream officially discontinued seamonkey-1 and also wrote about known unfixed security vulnerabilities. See this news post for reference: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/news#2010-03-16
In you patch I see: src_unpack() { gnome2_src_unpack - # change mozilla to seamonkey - sed -i -e 's:1.2b):1.0.0):;s:mozilla):seamonkey):' configure.ac - eautoreconf } But, if we don't run sed, maybe eautoreconf (and all src_unpack) could be dropped also?
Created attachment 224747 [details, diff] gnome-python-extras-2.14.2-r1.ebuild.diff You mean something like this?
Yes, of course. Well, I clearly misexplained it, the problem is that I won't be able to check if gnome-python-extras-2.14.2-r1 will really work after that (I am only able to check on amd64, that has 2.19.1-r3 instead), then, I wanted like a confirmation about dev-python/gnome-python-extras-2.14.2-r1 working ok after dropping eautoreconf completely, or, at least, be know eautoreconf is really not needed if sed is not run
(In reply to comment #7) > be know eautoreconf ... -> be sure
Sorry I really misunderstood you then. Unfortunately I can only test this on either ~amd64 or x86 which both was removed from keywords. We should maybe ask some ~x86-fbsd user to test the changed ebuild for us.
(In reply to comment #9) > We should maybe ask some ~x86-fbsd user to test the changed ebuild for us. > I fully agree Bsd team, please take a look on this bug and test if diff from comment #6 works for you (since I doubt bug 275807 will be fixed soon)
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > We should maybe ask some ~x86-fbsd user to test the changed ebuild for us. > > > > I fully agree > > Bsd team, please take a look on this bug and test if diff from comment #6 works > for you (since I doubt bug 275807 will be fixed soon) why not, but why do you bother to do that? simply add useflags to the meta package and be done as suggested in bug #282291 feel free to add ~x86-fbsd keywords to the meta as long as 'repoman full -d'is happy (note the -d!); if its not, feel free to mask gda and/or xulrunner in arch/x86-fbsd, with a comment, a link to bug #282291 & so on (btw: this mask goes in package.use.mask)
I wasn't aware of all the gnome-python-extras "history", thanks a lot for the explanation :-D This is now fixed since 2.14.2-r1 has just been dropped
