From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1F40U7-0003jk-Fb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:44:11 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0VIhSBZ011433; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:43:28 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0VIfedE012176 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:41:40 GMT Received: from c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([67.171.150.177] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1F40Rf-0008Pn-KJ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:41:39 +0000 Message-ID: <43DFAF60.4000100@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:41:36 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060120) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Unmasking modular X References: <43D5D1E4.9020801@gentoo.org> <20060131024137.GA19351@aerie.halcy0n.com> <200601312029.27944.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20060131172839.GA948@aerie.halcy0n.com> In-Reply-To: <20060131172839.GA948@aerie.halcy0n.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigDCC2CF2B594E3A87C6E4E933" X-Archives-Salt: a9f6cd56-5850-4a43-9fdf-dd3b35f3f472 X-Archives-Hash: 60681955e5264d3b4ec638ae74c49e46 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigDCC2CF2B594E3A87C6E4E933 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark Loeser wrote: > Jason Stubbs said: >> Is there any need for the packages to go into stable without the X dep= s being=20 >> fixed? Why not just open a bug for the package maintainer and mark it = against=20 >> whatever bug is requesting stabling of that package? Moving something = to=20 >> stable that you know is going to be broken within a relatively short=20 >> timeframe seems like a very bad idea... >=20 > We are talking about completely unrelated versions, not what we are tou= ching. > For example, old imagemagick ebuilds sitting around, where the newer eb= uilds > are fixed, but old ones are not. We have a security bug open about thi= s > package right now, and having an error about deps in some old version d= oesn't > really help arch teams at all. Oh, so we just screw up people using modular X on a stable system by breaking the latest stable ebuild.. Thanks, Donnie --------------enigDCC2CF2B594E3A87C6E4E933 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFD369iXVaO67S1rtsRAvl4AKDcCXM1t5x6OiwejZAUUnWQhU/1nQCgoWG4 DCK5c3Xl/C4BQjuuQ1Tmwf8= =dh2h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigDCC2CF2B594E3A87C6E4E933-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list