From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF361392EF for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:25:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62EF3E0AB2; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F1C9E0916 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:25:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [94.0.11.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hwoarang) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6662733FD58 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53AFCD6C.5080503@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:25:16 +0100 From: Markos Chandras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason? References: <20140629025822.GB22414@kroah.com> <53AFC9C0.7010206@gentoo.org> <20140629101222.0a8205ed@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140629101222.0a8205ed@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 94d51c5d-ab22-4ffe-910b-880a02647652 X-Archives-Hash: ab188ef0456486638aa4ae63696f97e0 On 06/29/2014 09:12 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 > Markos Chandras wrote: > >> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker >> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by >> the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes). And docker depends on >> lxc-1.0.0 according to the ebuild. But now that you have unmasked >> docker, i think the deptree will be broken since lxc is still masked. > > Repoman is monitored; therefore, someone from the QA team or so has > probably masked Docker. Given that broken dependency tree again it is > likely to happen again. So, please set it up a satisfiable state. :) > It's been a long time and sources.g.o is down so i can't check the history of that file. I think docker-1.0 was not present when i first committed >=lxc-1.0.0 in the tree. So, when docker-1.0 was committed, maybe repoman full was not checked, leading to a docker with broken deps and maybe QA team masked it because of that. Anyway apologies for the inconvenience. It was certainly not intentional -- Regards, Markos Chandras