Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 507980 - >=x11-libs/cairo-1.12.16-r1 unmasking request
Summary: >=x11-libs/cairo-1.12.16-r1 unmasking request
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 488672
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Ben de Groot (RETIRED)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 506900
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2014-04-18 10:10 UTC by Pacho Ramos
Modified: 2014-04-20 09:18 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2014-04-18 10:10:38 UTC 
I think would be interesting to finally unmask >=x11-libs/cairo-1.12.16-r1 allowing to also unmask other libs/packages relying on it. The multilib support was added at February and seems like it has no opened bugs with regressions

Thanks
Comment 1 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2014-04-18 16:44:11 UTC 
No, not interesting at all. It will be a completely dull event, with no issues, bugs or even semi-random unrelated build failures!
Comment 2 Ben de Groot (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-04-20 07:39:22 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 488672 ***
Comment 3 Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2014-04-20 08:46:09 UTC 
This is for requesting the unmask, not a dupe then. What is pending? The extra version bump? Why a revision bump isn't enough?
Comment 4 Ben de Groot (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-04-20 09:18:42 UTC 
(In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #3)
> This is for requesting the unmask, not a dupe then. What is pending? The
> extra version bump? Why a revision bump isn't enough?

It is a duplicate, because it is about the same issue. As stated there, I would like to see the multilib ebuild survive a version bump. In my experience that is more likely to trigger bugs.

See my dev ML email tho, as I'm giving up primary maintainership of this package. My critique stands, but it seems I'm one of the very few people who care.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 488672 ***