gui-apps/mako gone unstable only! [fixed]

[CaptainBlood]

Code: Select all

eixi mako
[?] gui-apps/mako
     Available versions:  ~1.8.0 ~1.9.0 ~1.10.0 **9999*l {elogind +icons systemd verify-sig}
     Installed versions:  1.10.0(22:49:50 07/09/2025)(elogind -icons -systemd)
     Homepage:            https://github.com/emersion/mako
     Description:         A lightweight notification daemon for Wayland. Works on Sway

Dang!

Thks 4 ur attention, interest & support.

[nicop]

He's right, https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit ... 73567587f7 unkeyworded all

[sam_]

It's an error. A bug report would've been more effective.

EDIT: Fixed.

[CaptainBlood]

A bug report would've been more effective.

Not sure I'm the only one not to believe that.

[sam_]

I don't know what that means, but I would've certainly seen this sooner and fixed it faster if you'd just filed a bug. I only saw this by chance.

[Hu]

Also, although investigation of the cited git commit does look suspicious, the opening post on its own looks like a general complaint that a package was dropped to unstable, not a defect report. We get such complaints intermittently when a package is legitimately removed from stable because the responsible maintainers believe that dropping it to unstable-only is the best course of action. Inevitably, some people are unhappy about such a change and post a complaint. When reporting something as a defect, it should be marked as such.

[asturm]

Not sure I'm the only one not to believe that.

:thumbs down:

What a character.

[pietinger]

A bug report would've been more effective.

Not sure I'm the only one not to believe that.

CaptainBlood,

I would like to say the following not only to you personally, but also to all users reading this thread:

All users of this forum are part of the global Gentoo community and make Gentoo better. Yes, even a simple question can show others where there are still gaps in information (how do you think my articles in the wiki came about ) or even an error. It should be borne in mind that everyone is working on a voluntary basis - without payment - sacrificing their free time. And, of course, there are many things that take priority, such as family and earning money.

There is a nice saying: Never assume intent when it could be an accident. I would like to add: Never assume deliberate inaction when it could be a lack of time.

Why am I writing this here?

You seem to have had bad experiences reporting a bug. There could be many different reasons for this. But whatever they were, it is a sign of helpful support for our developers when this explicit request is fulfilled. Even if many users write according to the motto "brevity is the soul of wit", this can also lead to misunderstandings. A "This doesn't work" can be understood as a complaint, while a question "Is it intended to work this way?" already reveals the doubt. And misunderstandings can also lead to opinions about users that do not correspond to reality.

For example, I have observed that you have a very specific Gentoo installation, which can cause you to "stumble" across things that most users would not even notice. This CAN be very helpful ... if it is reported appropriately ...

[nicop]

Also, although investigation of the cited git commit does look suspicious

It was an answer for a post deleted then. Sorry if it appeared like that.

[Hu]

nicop: I did not think you had done anything wrong. I was responding only to OP's text, not your elaboration, which I thought was helpful for providing a link to the specific git commit at issue. Perhaps I should have been a bit more verbose (which is ironic, since the point of my post was to suggest to OP that a clearer post would have been more helpful). I meant:

---

Although after I examined the cited git commit, I agree that the commit's contents look questionable, the opening post [ ... ]

---

That is, if I had read only the original post, and not the git commit, I would have thought this thread was just a complaint about a decision made by a maintainer. As I wrote above, such complaints happen, and on their own usually don't result in any changes. I would prefer that people posting about an adverse keyword change like this also describe what they want to happen:

• Input from other affected users about alternatives to the package. If the package is being changed in preparation for it being less well supported in Gentoo, users might want to migrate to a better supported alternative.
• Request for input from the maintainers about what would be required to reverse the decision (e.g. Does the package need more maintainers? Does the package need one of its dependencies improved? Does it need upstream to behave better? etc.)
• General grumbling, with no expectation of anything changing.

[sam_]

FWIW, we generally only destabilise really junk sci packages where they're constant pain to keep working, or for arches where we bet nobody is using a package anymore.

In this case, Arthur was trying to (rapidly) add verify-sig to various packages because of an earlier problem, and he just made an oversight when working on that (possibly in part because on IRC, we were discussing if sec-keys packages should go straight-to-stable or not, so it's possible he had briefly thought no, they needed a ~arch revbump to depend on such a sec-keys package, then changed his thinking, etc).