[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ?

[Martin Schlemmer <azarah@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 22:34, Maik Schreiber wrote:
> >>version
> >>1.2.1 has the keyword ~x86 - so stable users don't get it although there's
> >>no reason for calling Mozilla 1.2.1 "unstable"...
> > 
> > It depends -possibly- on the xft-2 ebuild and that isn't marked stable 
> > yet, that's the reason.
> 
> If mozilla-1.2.1 is "unstable" because of _this_, I think that's an improper use of masking. There's really no point in masking something
> because its _dependencies_ are masked. If you do this, you would have to check each dependency, and if all of them are "stable", you can
> mask the package itself "stable" as well.
> 
> Instead, Portage should respect the "unstable" dependencies, and warn you that it can't install your "stable" package because some of its
> dependencies are "unstable". (Portage already does that, which is good.)
> 
> So again, there's no point in masking a package "unstable" just because its dependencies are "unstable".

Mozilla 1.2.1 is marked as testing, cause there are still some minor
issues with it.  Then, if anybody did mind checking, it do not
depend on x11-libs/xft, but compile it internally.  I have taken
much time to have its Xft2.0 'contained' ... you will see that its
not even libXft.so or libXrender.so anymore, but libXft_moz.so and
libXrender_moz.so ...  This change seems to fix some issues that
some  people had with it not starting, so it may be marked stable
in a bit if all goes well ...


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list