| 1 |
On 01/30/2018 09:18 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 30/01/18 17:16, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/30/2018 08:39 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
| 5 |
>>> <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> I'd rather keyword the "fixed" portage version instead. |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>> If you can get this version marked stable, that will solve the |
| 9 |
>>> problem. I don't know how many other unrelated changes are in .20 so |
| 10 |
>>> I don't know how feasible a quick-stable is. |
| 11 |
>> There are a couple of important problems with portage-2.3.20 that are |
| 12 |
>> fixed in portage-2.3.21, so you should use portage-2.3.21 instead: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> * Bug 645416 dep_zapdeps: fix virtual/rust handling (regression) |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> * Bug 645780 add --changed-deps-report option (in order to help users |
| 17 |
>> cope with the new --dynamic-deps=n default introduced in portage-2.3.20). |
| 18 |
> How much of the new 'gemato' features are included in .21 Zac? Is there |
| 19 |
> any way we can backport the regression to .20 ? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> What are the stabilisation targets currently for .20 and .21 respectively? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We really can't stabilize portage-2.3.20 due to the above bugs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Do you have any specific issues with the gemato support in |
| 26 |
portage-2.3.21? We can always mask the rsync-verify USE flag if we need |
| 27 |
to disable that feature. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives