On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 03/06/14 15:08, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:35:42 -0400 >> Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> This probably could have used a news item, as the change impacts both >>> stable and ~arch users. >> Are we going to write a news item every time systemd acquires a new >> mandatory relationship with a reverse dependency? > > IMHO, not every singular dependency change (even blocker) needs one. > For those failing to read `eix upower` or `emerge -C upower` or masking > systemd, or number of other ways the blocker can be solved, the answer > is in Gentoo news letter, forums, first hits in Google, /topic of #gentoo at > Freenode, MLs, pretty much everywhere.
The whole point of news is to tell people about an action they need to take before they have to take it. The output of portage doesn't really tell you what is going on. The article in GMN doesn't provide clear instructions on what needs to be done, and refers to 0.99.0 when the issue impacts 0.9.23 as well. > > But news item has been planned all along for when UPower 0.99.0 goes > stable, propably > GNOME 3.12 and some 0.99.0 consumers, when there are enough steps to > accumulate as news worthy. This has already hit stable. The dependency on systemd is present in sys-power/upower-0.9.23-r3, which was just stablized. Rich
