repoman would warn about when an unmask is pointless, but pkgcheck doesn't seem to, at least.
Example from ::gentoo:
commit a0b2113bcb53f87ad906a69d3f551922efd5cc81 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD)
Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed May 4 02:20:37 2022 +0100
profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le: fix JRE/JDK unmasking
From repoman (noticed b/c of old CI action);
```
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
--- Unmatched removal atom(s) in /var/db/repos/gentoo/profiles/arch/powerpc/ppc64/64le/package.mask: -virtual/jre:11, -virtual/jdk:11
```
Fixes: 25ff46699ff036d55928b12d3fe801dc2f83e4b0
Fixes: ab6527219b01c21eac9f8090959a9c125346c322
Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Summary:
# Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> (2022-01-09)
# No provider (e.g. OpenJDK) available on big endian PPC64 right now
-virtual/jdk:11
-virtual/jre:11
- repoman warns on this, pkgcheck doesn't seem to.
It passed CI in gentoo/gentoo#25305 notably. CC @Flowdalic (FYI).
I've noticed a similar issue like this before but I'll file another bug for that.
repoman would warn about when an unmask is pointless, but pkgcheck doesn't seem to, at least.
Example from
::gentoo:Summary:
It passed CI in gentoo/gentoo#25305 notably. CC @Flowdalic (FYI).
I've noticed a similar issue like this before but I'll file another bug for that.