On 11/21/2010 08:49 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:54:19 +0200
Alex Alexander<wi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:47:57AM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:35:18 +1300
Alistair Bush<ali_b...@gentoo.org> wrote:
We don't do revbumps on masked toolchain packages.
Why not?
Yeah why not? do you inform users of this?
Users unmasking toolchain packages need to be paying close attention to
what's going on behind the scenes. They're in the tree for people who
know what they're doing to test. Even unmasked, toolchain revbumps are
expensive and we do them only when absolutely necessary.
If you pushed important fixes to gcc, you should revbump it before
unmasking it.
If you skip the revbump, I'm sure most users will miss this.
There's virtually no expense to a revbump in this case. You just asked
every user currently using gcc-4.5.1 to rebuild it, isn't a revbump the
best, safest way to do that?
Since everyone and their dog seems to have unmasked it already I'll make an
exception.
:-P
I don't know about the others, but I unmasked it in order to test it
against non-portage compiles. Just because people unmask it doesn't
necessarily mean they switched their system gcc profile to it.
The problem should be obvious; those people will then see that it got
unmasked, so will assume it's ready for testing in-tree packages with it
and switch their gcc profile. But without a revbump...
