Re: [gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?

2012-12-11 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?

2012-12-07 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
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

[gentoo-dev] OK to unmask icu-50?

2012-12-07 Thread Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
# Tomáš Chvátal (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