On 01 Feb 2016 22:16, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > Am Montag, 1. Februar 2016, 21:30:41 schrieb Mike Frysinger: > > On 01 Feb 2016 19:55, Patrice Clement wrote: > > > > New issues: > > > > https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/780f65b/output.html#dev-libs/efl > > > > > > This commit is breaking the tree: > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=97a6aec > > > > > > I did try to work around the issue you've introduced when but the > > > enlightenment eclasses are a bit of mystery to me and I eventually gave > > > up. > > > > > > Could you revert this commit and fix this issue? > > > > the issue is that efl-1.15.2 is marked stable for alpha/ia64/sparc, and > > it depends on app-i18n/ibus, but commit 97a6aec deleted the only ibus > > ebuild that was marked stable for those arches. > > > > it can be fixed in a few ways (i'm listing in order of preference): > > (1) mark a newer ibus stable > > (2) revert that commit to re-add the old stable ebuilds > > (3) add USE=ibus to package.use.stable.mask for these arches > > (4) degrade all packages for these arches to unstable > > I took the liberty of doing (2) and reverted the commit. Not sure why this > needs so much discussion; after all a broken tree is always suboptimal.
unless things are on fire (which i don't think this was), i don't generally clamor for 0-day fixes. if we can find a better fix in a day or so, then i'm happy for that. i dislike repos with history that is just a constant stream of land, revert, land, revert, land. not that i'm saying your revert was wrong ... just airing my general personal preferences. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
