| 1 |
Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 1:35 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>>Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> .51 also has many new features, IIRC. Maybe the reason isn't for testing, but |
| 12 |
> because repoman .51 is now neccesary? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
repoman is horribly broken for multi-arch deps if you're not using |
| 15 |
portage 2.0.51_pre last i checked. and until portage 2.0.50-r10 you |
| 16 |
needed to use 2.0.51_pre in order to have tar not (incorrectly) break |
| 17 |
the sandbox on ~amd64. also, when i went to make a cascading profile for |
| 18 |
amd64/gcc34-2004.2 i noticed that portage 2.0.50 hung when i specified a |
| 19 |
default virtual for (i think) ruby, while portage 2.0.51 handled it |
| 20 |
without problems (i had to delete the virtual for compatibility). |
| 21 |
ferringb and jstubbs are getting tired of my endless bug reports. ;) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
i'm probably forgetting other stuff, but those were the most annoying |
| 24 |
for me personally. i'd definately vote for getting portage 2.0.51 out |
| 25 |
the door as soon as possible. that is, as soon as any release blocker |
| 26 |
bugs are fixed... anything else can really be fixed after it's release, |
| 27 |
IMHO. the bugs in .51 cant be much worse than .50. :/ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
i like 2.0.51. it's actually been less stressfull here, so i guess i |
| 30 |
would recommend it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Travis Tilley <lv@g.o> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives