Dnia 2015-04-15, o godz. 22:27:03 James Le Cuirot <ch...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 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? :/ portage-9999 has new -S (--straight-to-stable) option for repoman. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
pgpCmcY2DEjBh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
