| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:14:26AM +0100, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most |
| 8 |
> > >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be |
| 9 |
> > >>appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up... |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not |
| 14 |
> > portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded |
| 17 |
> support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version, |
| 18 |
> because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not |
| 19 |
> emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not |
| 20 |
> fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What tools? |
| 23 |
Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but |
| 24 |
portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives