On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:42:30AM +0200, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 22/07/14 02:36, hasufell wrote: > > William Hubbs: > >> My concern about doing a revbump just because the deps change is > >> that the new revision has to be committed in ~arch, so we then > >> have to hit the arch teams, which we know are overworked anyway, > >> with stable requests just because we changed the dependencies. > >> Isn't that causing a lot of possibly unnecessary work for our > >> arch teams? > > Procedure over logic? > > > > Just commit it straight to arch if repoman doesn't complain. > William, > > this is, as Julian pointed out, a problem you can solve by changing > your policies. This is not a problem related to the Portage software, > in which dynamic-deps are broken.
s/your/our/ Repoman refuses to commit if you try to go directly to stable without using --force. I'm just being cautious; I'm not sure whether this qualifies as the type of emergency situation where commiting directly to stable is a good thing or not. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
