-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 15/04/15 05:27 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 12:29:11 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" > <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> I felt the need to write the above because I have seen many >>> instances where devs not familiar with Java packaging have >>> made this mistake. Now I need to ask what to do in the case of >>> ebuilds that have already been marked stable. >>> >>> To bring up a real example, I would like to bump dev-java/jna >>> with a new SLOT for the new version. There are several reverse >>> dependencies, 3 of which do not specify a SLOT, and 2 of these >>> have already been marked stable. Upon giving jna a new SLOT, >>> all these packages would instantly fail to build if jna:0 is >>> not already installed and they would also fail to run if jna:0 >>> gets depcleaned. Simply leaving the stable ebuilds as they are >>> is therefore not an option. My preferred solution would be >>> create a revbump that solely amends (R)DEPEND, leaving the >>> KEYWORDS exactly as they are. This is controversial but what >>> other choice is there? I could delay the jna bump but this >>> would push back this thread of work by a month when I already >>> have a huge backlog. Please do not let bureaucracy get in the >>> way here. >> >> Sounds good to me (as long as repoman agrees :). > > Turns out it doesn't agree. > > RepoMan scours the neighborhood... KEYWORDS.stable [fatal] 1 > dev-embedded/arduino/arduino-1.0.5-r1.ebuild added with stable > keywords: amd64 x86 > > What are my options? Force it? :/ >
If you're revbumping to introduce a necessary dependency change for VDB cleanup, and otherwise the package will be unchanged and will still work as it did before, you can force a direct-to-stable commit. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlUu2E4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCO0QEAucQpdcs+QHXrgcP/+V25Ntns YPz3ytjZGb+265EIEiUA/RvyilyOnRnaZV27QXINPuWARNNccMyOXFCa0SHl6JgT =qG+K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
