From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RKj2C-0001C0-RS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:59:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73D0F21C040 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f218.google.com (mail-ew0-f218.google.com [209.85.219.218]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704F5E07BA for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy18 with SMTP id 18so4117344ewy.14 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=sw3zgo5ANZLSt9skYNDsFW7qdeUCDW8qcSLUqybfvh4=; b=xpsrwvJOmKf2kKgfwpTrMAgNM8EmUESOjPFN0IuR2tLmgP4gQmzabA8xBCNAHRBJCu wbGL2W1VC0nL2ELl7jELHxqzjrZj1DLueuAjxbPu0vw5ySdhE9cnFiYnyqYGDRVt6VfH TVvFEEEjBJys4PGt7J31YVpTqfbrP1UTY1iYM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=f8A2S15aku/fEFIZb9KyW+a4kyqqfT4KoM4gdSX31d6DWyxhYr9j3vI5FxRxo78auq 34udA03dSAu4O9TivDYLkTsVvYbJKoGozvxg6wyOFtjAurw6Th3RP/K/ikdZnM7o328e XGn5lR7XyLEEvVHsniLQkIZT3ApUlpw8ehuNQ= Received: by 10.210.56.2 with SMTP id e2mr7181963eba.31.1251234999807; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet ([196.210.202.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm1269202eye.30.2009.08.25.14.16.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:16:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why does emerge want to downgrade firefox/xul-runner? Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:15:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r4; KDE/4.3.0; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908252315.08059.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: b94ce3aa-59e1-42b0-9a2d-2f8b3df2eb49 X-Archives-Hash: 6aae90befefe74ce2a37576b1b203df5 On Tuesday 25 August 2009 23:04:12 Grant Edwards wrote: > Last week on all my systems emerge upgraded firefox (3.5.2-r1) > and xul-runner (1.9.1.2-r2). > > Now it's decided it wants to downgrade all of them to 3.0.13 > and 1.9.0.13. > > Looking at the package database page, I see that firefox > 3.5.2-r1 is marked as unstable (~x86). Same for xulrunner > 1.3.1.2-r1. That explains why emerge wants to downgrade to the > stable version: I don't have ~x86 unmasked for > firefox/xulrunner and never have had. > > What I don't understand is why they got upgraded last week. > > Were firefox 3.5.2 and xulrunner 1.9.1.2 marked as stable last > week and then changed back to unstable this week? IIRC someone posted in the last few days that firefox and xulrunner were briefly stable for a few hours. fwiw, firefox-3.0.13 and xulrunner-1.9.0.13 are ~arch here, I synced two hours ago and my mirror is 8-12 hours behind the master. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com