Re: [gentoo-releng] Workaround for stage1 failures introduced with portage-2.3.19-r1

[Zac Medico]

On 01/30/2018 02:44 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
>> <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
>>> I believe there was some misunderstanding about my comment.
>>> I meant I prefer to add to our /etc/portage/package.keywords an entry
>>> for a portage version with this issue fixed.
>>> Per Zac's comment above, I'll do that for portage2.3.21.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jorge.
>>>
>>
>> You're going to ship unstable portage in stage3 just to avoid adding a
>> temporary portage config that users won't even see?
>
> AFAICS, the real solution here is not to try to play "whac-a-mole",
> but to get a consistent resolution by portage - which requires using a
> version that is currently unstable (pending stabilization at a later
> date).
>
> Zac,
> do you foresee any issue with users getting a downgrade from 2.3.21 to
> the latest stable? At that point, the virtual providers were already
> picked, so they shouldn't be affected by this issue. Are there any
> features on 2.3.21 that may cause "regressions" is users end up
> downgrading to the current latest stable?

There are not problems like that, the downgrade should be smooth.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac