thanks
An automated check of this bug failed - repoman reported dependency errors (197 lines truncated): > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: DEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]'] > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: RDEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]'] > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: DEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0/desktop) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]']
no riscv keywords at all
This version of tiff will require app-arch/zstd with multilib support.
Already stable on some architectures.
An automated check of this bug failed - repoman reported dependency errors (87 lines truncated): > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: DEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]'] > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: RDEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]'] > dependency.bad media-libs/tiff/tiff-4.0.10.ebuild: DEPEND: alpha(default/linux/alpha/17.0/desktop) ['>=app-arch/zstd-1.3.7-r1:=[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]']
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 669948 ***