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 0B01D13877A for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B93CE0994; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:26:20 +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 3C001E095F for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:26:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D48733F9EC for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:26:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RuSymcHznOgv for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5C433F23A for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WzWLo-0005tL-C0 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:52 +0200 Received: from hsi-kbw-109-192-107-076.hsi6.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([109.192.107.76]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:52 +0200 Received: from joerg.schaible by hsi-kbw-109-192-107-076.hsi6.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changes in installed ebuilds Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:25:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1403570947.24976.1.camel@rook> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hsi-kbw-109-192-107-076.hsi6.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de User-Agent: KNode/4.12.5 X-Archives-Salt: d6a78126-3232-479e-bfd8-e5e02d56cf42 X-Archives-Hash: 1479a49db9a9a1d0cfe38431871c23fd Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 22:15 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> So, why the heck, was the dependency to dev-libs/glib changed for an >> existing ebuild without increasing its version (e.g. >> dbus-glib-0.100.2-r2)? > > Please see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/91615 These blocks had nothing to do with the multilibs ABI. It has been just the updated versions for the dependencies. >> I have to use an older Eclipse 3.8.x version for my daily work and since >> it is broken with latest gtk versions (a lot of crashes), I use still >> some old ebuilds and have masked new ones. > > Please file a bug report about this. If nobody tells us that a new gtk+ > version broke something important, we will soon mark the new version as > stable and then remove the old version. I report anything, if it is worth it. However, in this case the problem is on Eclipse's side and fixed in newer versions. Alas, it does not help me, because I have to use that old version for my daily work. So, there's no blame on Gentoo and nothing the devs should have to waste their time. Therefore I still use the once stable versions of GTK (~5 months old now), where this old version of Eclipse runs, i.e. I already preserved some older versions locally that are already vanished from the portage tree. The newer ones are hard masked. However, if some of my currently installed stable packages suddenly require newer versions, my portage tree gets in serious trouble. Nothing would have happen if the revision number of the affected packages had been simply increased. Cheers, Jörg