1 |
On Thursday 15 of July 2010 16:24:08 Mike Auty wrote: |
2 |
> On 15/07/10 14:57, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: |
3 |
> > And what about using portage 2.2 and be done with it. I don't see the |
4 |
> > point in reinventing the wheel yet again. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I'm using portage-2.2 and have been since it first came out. I find the |
7 |
> @set notation invaluable. |
8 |
|
9 |
From my perspective sets notation is actually worthless and confusing (but |
10 |
that's another topic). |
11 |
IIRC I've already spoke with portage team to think about making it emerge |
12 |
option instead or at least decouple it from sets semantics if possible (or it |
13 |
was about @live-rebuild? hmm). I think there are some preserved-related bugs |
14 |
(false positives) that need to be fixed first. Otherwise I'd welcome it being |
15 |
stable. I've already forgot what revdep-rebuild is thanks to portage-2.2 |
16 |
|
17 |
-- |
18 |
regards |
19 |
MM |