On Saturday 04 March 2017 09:52:38 Jorge Almeida wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:21:23 +0200, gevisz wrote: > >> So, in my portage tree currently there is one stable gvim package with > >> version 8.0.0106 > >> and one unstable gvim package, with version 8.0.0386. > >> > >> Why portage force me to unmask an unstable version of the package then? > >> > >> > >> [ebuild U ] app-vim/gentoo-syntax-20170225 [20160530] > >> [ebuild U ~] app-editors/gvim-8.0.0386 [8.0.0106] > > > > Because vim-8.0.0386 is stable and, presumably, the vim and gvim versions > > must match. I would suggest filing a stabilisation bug for gvim, or > > Isn't it a bit bizarre that portage tries to force users to go > unstable on such an exotic package as one of the two major text > editors? > > This can't be good publicity for Gentoo. Yes, I know nobody is after > that, but still... > > I couldn't find the name of the maintainer. Maybe different devs are > in charge of vim and gvim? > > just > > > use emacs... > > What do[es] the maintainer[s] use? > > Regards > > Jorge Almeida
Does nobody think of searching bugs.gentoo.org anymore? It was an oversight: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611386#c6. -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
