commit:     cf26b3dd94dea5253a16beb3c936b5d8b588661e
Author:     Ionen Wolkens <ionen <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
AuthorDate: Fri Dec  2 03:38:56 2022 +0000
Commit:     Ionen Wolkens <ionen <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
CommitDate: Fri Dec  2 03:56:02 2022 +0000
URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=cf26b3dd

app-emulation/wine-proton: destabilize 7.0.5 back to ~x86

Stabilized wine-vanilla-7.0.1 was fine, but upon closer look
wine-proton on the other hand is kinda broken at runtime when
doing any X11 usage. Keeping keyword given believe may be because
of my x86 test setup, but at least going to avoid stable.

Not that I really want x86 either way, mostly was to be in sync
with other wine versions.

Signed-off-by: Ionen Wolkens <ionen <AT> gentoo.org>

 app-emulation/wine-proton/wine-proton-7.0.5.ebuild | 2 +-
 profiles/arch/x86/package.use.stable.mask          | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/app-emulation/wine-proton/wine-proton-7.0.5.ebuild 
b/app-emulation/wine-proton/wine-proton-7.0.5.ebuild
index 4d70f3788362..82c405523947 100644
--- a/app-emulation/wine-proton/wine-proton-7.0.5.ebuild
+++ b/app-emulation/wine-proton/wine-proton-7.0.5.ebuild
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ if [[ ${PV} == *9999 ]]; then
 else
        
SRC_URI="https://github.com/ValveSoftware/wine/archive/refs/tags/proton-wine-${WINE_PV}.tar.gz";
        S="${WORKDIR}/${PN}-wine-${WINE_PV}"
-       KEYWORDS="-* amd64 x86"
+       KEYWORDS="-* amd64 ~x86"
 fi
 
 DESCRIPTION="Valve Software's fork of Wine"

diff --git a/profiles/arch/x86/package.use.stable.mask 
b/profiles/arch/x86/package.use.stable.mask
index bea0c61eeb58..3d18401172ef 100644
--- a/profiles/arch/x86/package.use.stable.mask
+++ b/profiles/arch/x86/package.use.stable.mask
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ dev-ruby/haml test
 
 # Adam Feldman <np-hard...@gentoo.org> (2017-09-27)
 # patchset variants are not stable
-virtual/wine staging
+virtual/wine proton staging
 
 # Christoph Junghans <jungh...@gentoo.org> (2017-02-26)
 # Stable mask some fabrics (bug #525534)

Reply via email to