Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 4914D188.4010803@g.o,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800:

> Since portage-2.2 isn't quite ready yet due to ongoing work in package
> sets and preserve-libs, and I don't want ongoing work to hold back other
> features that are stable, I'm planning to split a 2.1.6 branch from
> trunk. This branch will have package sets and preserve-libs support
> disabled. This branch will be named 2.1.6 in order to preserve
> continuity such that the final portage-2.2 release will have all of the
> features that have existed in previous portage-2.2 releases.
> 
> In order to get testing on the new 2.1.6 branch, I plan to put
> portage-2.2 back in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has been marked
> stable.

The idea is (or would be) good, but with kde4 being one of the biggest 
and highest profile users of the new features including sets and with it 
already ~arch, I'm not sure how practical putting 2.2 or set support back 
in package mask really is.  Do we really want to deal with the PR and 
other implications of putting kde4 back in package mask?

OTOH, maybe you've discussed it with the KDE project already and they 
said do what you need to do.  Maybe after all that work on and delay for 
sets, they've decided they can do without, for the time being?

IOW, preserve-libs I think you could get away with, but I just don't 
think it's practical to even consider killing ~arch portage with set 
support.  But I'm not a dev, and maybe it's just me. <shrug>

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman