Re: [gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?
On 12/7/12 11:51 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: Sounds good to me. Tinderbox was fine with the latest changes to icu. Just for reference, next time it would be nice to unmask this when chromium and libreoffice are both bumped (i.e., two days ago), so that people don't have to rebuild them twice... luckily for me I kept it unmasked when testing it ;) Unmasked for everyone then. Thank you for testing. I think this is quite a good moment for unmasking: I've just done a dev channel bump of Chromium, we're going to have a stable one for security issues, and beta has been done 3 days ago. Paweł signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?
# Tomáš Chvátal scarabeus@ (04 Nov 2012) # Masked for testing with gcc-4.7 and to verify reverse deps dev-libs/icu-49.9.1 I think with icu-50.1-r2 the problems are solved. It should get more testing in ~arch. I'd like to unmask it. WDYT? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?
Sounds good to me. Tinderbox was fine with the latest changes to icu. Just for reference, next time it would be nice to unmask this when chromium and libreoffice are both bumped (i.e., two days ago), so that people don't have to rebuild them twice... luckily for me I kept it unmasked when testing it ;) Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.orgwrote: # Tomáš Chvátal scarabeus@ (04 Nov 2012) # Masked for testing with gcc-4.7 and to verify reverse deps dev-libs/icu-49.9.1 I think with icu-50.1-r2 the problems are solved. It should get more testing in ~arch. I'd like to unmask it. WDYT?
