| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 4914D188.4010803@g.o, |
| 6 |
> excerpted below, on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> Since portage-2.2 isn't quite ready yet due to ongoing work in package |
| 9 |
>> sets and preserve-libs, and I don't want ongoing work to hold back other |
| 10 |
>> features that are stable, I'm planning to split a 2.1.6 branch from |
| 11 |
>> trunk. This branch will have package sets and preserve-libs support |
| 12 |
>> disabled. This branch will be named 2.1.6 in order to preserve |
| 13 |
>> continuity such that the final portage-2.2 release will have all of the |
| 14 |
>> features that have existed in previous portage-2.2 releases. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> In order to get testing on the new 2.1.6 branch, I plan to put |
| 17 |
>> portage-2.2 back in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has been marked |
| 18 |
>> stable. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The idea is (or would be) good, but with kde4 being one of the biggest |
| 21 |
> and highest profile users of the new features including sets and with it |
| 22 |
> already ~arch, I'm not sure how practical putting 2.2 or set support back |
| 23 |
> in package mask really is. Do we really want to deal with the PR and |
| 24 |
> other implications of putting kde4 back in package mask? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> OTOH, maybe you've discussed it with the KDE project already and they |
| 27 |
> said do what you need to do. Maybe after all that work on and delay for |
| 28 |
> sets, they've decided they can do without, for the time being? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I haven't talked to them about it but AFAIK it entirely possible to |
| 31 |
use kde4 without package sets since the meta-ebuilds are available. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> IOW, preserve-libs I think you could get away with, but I just don't |
| 34 |
> think it's practical to even consider killing ~arch portage with set |
| 35 |
> support. But I'm not a dev, and maybe it's just me. <shrug> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Well, package set support just isn't stable yet. We can make all of |
| 38 |
the other features wait for it if that's what people really want to |
| 39 |
do. <shrug> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
- -- |
| 42 |
Thanks, |
| 43 |
Zac |
| 44 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 45 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkkU5X0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNNNgCg1dQDZw7ZT5iSwc7vMMDGCrfs |
| 48 |
YtEAoMPogQMnySq4kA7I7ANe7Hvpz0uF |
| 49 |
=0T7f |
| 50 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives