On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200 Alex Alexander <wi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300 > > Alistair Bush <ali_b...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages. > > > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > Yeah why not? do you inform users of this? > > > > Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to > > what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who > > know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are > > expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary. > > If you pushed important fixes to gcc, you should revbump it before > unmasking it. > > If you skip the revbump, I'm sure most users will miss this. > > There's virtually no expense to a revbump in this case. You just asked > every user currently using gcc-4.5.1 to rebuild it, isn't a revbump the > best, safest way to do that? Since everyone and their dog seems to have unmasked it already I'll make an exception. -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
