From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32728 invoked by uid 1002); 16 Dec 2002 20:59:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 26875 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 20:59:22 -0000 From: Martin Schlemmer To: Maik Schreiber Cc: Gentoo-Dev , gentoo-core In-Reply-To: <20021216203412.GB8276@wolverine.hh.iq-computing.de> References: <3DFE1BD9.5090004@foser.warande.net> <20021216203412.GB8276@wolverine.hh.iq-computing.de> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1040071802.15389.9.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0- Date: 16 Dec 2002 22:50:02 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo "stable" going in wrong direction ? X-Archives-Salt: a92379c3-bf12-4450-885c-d138af15fadb X-Archives-Hash: b53f6d715f24f556394b113424d35e0b 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