On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 12:29:11 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I felt the need to write the above because I have seen many > > instances where devs not familiar with Java packaging have made > > this mistake. Now I need to ask what to do in the case of ebuilds > > that have already been marked stable. > > > > To bring up a real example, I would like to bump dev-java/jna with > > a new SLOT for the new version. There are several reverse > > dependencies, 3 of which do not specify a SLOT, and 2 of these have > > already been marked stable. Upon giving jna a new SLOT, all these > > packages would instantly fail to build if jna:0 is not already > > installed and they would also fail to run if jna:0 gets depcleaned. > > Simply leaving the stable ebuilds as they are is therefore not an > > option. My preferred solution would be create a revbump that solely > > amends (R)DEPEND, leaving the KEYWORDS exactly as they are. This is > > controversial but what other choice is there? I could delay the jna > > bump but this would push back this thread of work by a month when I > > already have a huge backlog. Please do not let bureaucracy get in > > the way here. > > Sounds good to me (as long as repoman agrees :). Turns out it doesn't agree. RepoMan scours the neighborhood... KEYWORDS.stable [fatal] 1 dev-embedded/arduino/arduino-1.0.5-r1.ebuild added with stable keywords: amd64 x86 What are my options? Force it? :/ -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
pgphGXHKzpk0G.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
