Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
| Navigation: |
|
Lists:
gentoo-dev:
< Prev
By Thread
Next >
< Prev
By Date
Next >
|
| Headers: |
|
To:
|
gentoo-dev@g.o, zmedico@g.o
|
|
From:
|
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-apps/portage: portage-2.2.0_alpha1.ebuild portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild ChangeLog portage-2.2.0_alpha3.ebuild portage-2.2.0_alpha2.ebuild
|
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:20:54 -0300
|
|
On Monday 01 November 2010 13:33:47 Zac Medico (zmedico) wrote:
> zmedico 10/11/01 16:33:47
>
> Modified: portage-2.2.0_alpha1.ebuild portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild
> ChangeLog portage-2.2.0_alpha3.ebuild
> portage-2.2.0_alpha2.ebuild
> Log:
> Drop keywords from portage-2.2*, as a substitute for masking via
> package.mask. This alleviates issues for cases like bug #336692 in which
> people want to use profiles to unmask portage-2.2.
Does portage 2.1 have preserve-libs? If not, pretty please, readd the ~sparc-
fbsd and ~x86-fbsd keywords. We unmasked portage 2.2 a while ago because we
relied on preserve-libs for the upgrades. Esp. one where libc.so.6 becomes
libc.so.7... without preserve-libs its almost impossible to upgrade from one
release to another one without a full reinstall.
A.
|
|
