| 1 |
On 7 Jul 2002, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi Devs: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Bad news: I found a significant bug in Portage 2.0.10 and earlier that |
| 6 |
> could cause masking to work improperly, particularly if a package has a |
| 7 |
> ~ entry in the profile's packages file. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Good news: I've fixed the problem in Portage 2.0.11 by rewriting |
| 10 |
> portage.py's portdbapi xmatch() and visible() methods. This has |
| 11 |
> resulted in a 44% speed-up in dependency calculations over Portage |
| 12 |
> 2.0.10. If you thought things were fast before... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> More good news: I've improved repoman to differentiate between |
| 15 |
> user-visible ebuilds with bad dependencies and masked ebuilds with bad |
| 16 |
> dependencies. When checking dependencies, user-visible ebuilds' |
| 17 |
> dependencies are only matched against user-visible ebuilds. But when |
| 18 |
> masked ebuilds are checked, deps are satisfied using *all* available |
| 19 |
> ebuilds. This should eliminate virtually all false positives in the |
| 20 |
> repoman DEPEND and RDEPEND QA tests. Type "repoman --help" for more |
| 21 |
> information on these new changes. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Enjoy! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I still cannot get the new portage when I sync. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Does someone have the same problem? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paul |
Archives