Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2

["Steve [Gentoo]" <gentoo_steve@shic.co.uk>]

Petteri Räty wrote:

>>What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and
>>specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked?
>>    
>>
>At least a month and there can't be any major bugs reported to
>bugs.gentoo.org. About specifics on Subversion you need to ask its
>maintainer. It will stay masked as long as needed for the maintainer to become sure that the package really is stable.
>  
>
Hmmm... I suppose that suggests there were some major bugs...  using 
bugs.gentoo.org is new to me - it seems that's where I was missing a 
pointer.  Thanks again.  I didn't want to pester the maintainer with 
superfluous questions as to why packages are masked. It seems a pity 
that all the information isn't available on one page... using 
packages.gentoo.org and bugs.gentoo.org together gives the right info - 
even if it requires a little bit more effort. :-)  I'll be sure to see 
if I can offer feedback to the bugzilla database if I find something 
relevant to add.

>>Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. 
>>Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an "emerge -uD world" in another few months?
>>    
>>
>No it would not. You are just changing the accepted the keywords for
>Subversion. Portage always chooses the latest version with accepted
>keywords. If just add dev-util/subversion you say that you will accept
>every version marked as ~x86 or you can use =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1
>to only mark one version. If you don't use version numbers, you will
>always update to the latest version. If you lock down the version
>number, the next time you will update if after there is a version
>greater then 1.2.1, which is marked stable (x86).
>  
>
Ah, ha.  That sounds sensible - now I follow.  My USE confusion is 
probably that I'd referred to some wrong/out-of-date documentation... 
when I use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in place of USE it now behaves just how I had 
previously expected it should have done.

# ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -uD subversion

This does what I'd originally intended to try...  (and doesn't force me 
to remember how to spell the  dependencies.) I assume there's no 
significant advantage I've missed in preferring to use the 
package.keywords file instead?

>Hopefully I answered this.
>  
>
I think you did... Thanks!


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list