Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

media-gfx/viewnior: fix building with >=media-gfx/exiv2-0.28.0 #31055

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

media-gfx/viewnior: fix building with >=media-gfx/exiv2-0.28.0 #31055

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

tastytea
Copy link
Contributor

@tastytea tastytea commented May 16, 2023 •
edited

  • new revision with patches
  • change dependency to <media-gfx/exiv2-0.28.0 for stable
  • remove old version

@gentoo-bot
Copy link

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @tastytea
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: media-gfx/viewnior

media-gfx/viewnior: @tastytea, @gentoo/proxy-maint

Linked bugs

Bugs linked: 906495

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

@gentoo-bot gentoo-bot added self-maintained The PR changes only packages that are maintained by the submitter (i.e. no need to ask anybody else) assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). bug linked Bug/Closes found in footer, and cross-linked with the PR. labels May 16, 2023
a17r
a17r suggested changes May 16, 2023
View reviewed changes
media-gfx/viewnior/viewnior-1.8.ebuild Outdated
media-gfx/exiv2:0=
<media-gfx/exiv2-0.28.0:0=
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would technically require a revbump, and upper version bounds make terrible UX. My advice:

  • exiv2-0.28.0 is PMASKED, so there's no hurry
  • leave the stable ebuild alone, ~arch/arch mixing is unsupported (and more responsibility on the user)
  • make sure to file stabilisation bug in time before exiv2 and the problem goes away

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why would it require a revbump, there is no potential for breakage? i think a failing build is even worse UX. 😊

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

RDEPEND changes always need a revbump or they do not end up in VDB, so existing stable ebuild users that you try to protect here in fact won't be stopped from updating exiv2.

Copy link
Member

@a17r a17r May 16, 2023 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think a failing build is even worse UX.

You are faced with the option of receiving bugs about failing build because of an unsupported setup, or bugs about Portage conflicts related to your package (and exiv2 maintainers of theirs), pick your poison.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ah, hadn't thought of that, thanks. dropped the commit.

@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-16 10:19 UTC
Newest commit scanned: ea7c8ce
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/05d3b494f4/output.html

@tastytea
media-gfx/viewnior: drop 1.7-r2
12898a1 
Signed-off-by: tastytea <gentoo@tastytea.de>
@gentoo-repo-qa-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-05-16 10:53 UTC
Newest commit scanned: 12898a1
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/6596e37398/output.html

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@a17r a17r a17r requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
assigned PR successfully assigned to the package maintainer(s). bug linked Bug/Closes found in footer, and cross-linked with the PR. self-maintained The PR changes only packages that are maintained by the submitter (i.e. no need to ask anybody else)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
4 participants
@tastytea @gentoo-bot @gentoo-repo-qa-bot @a17r