| 1 |
On 11/02/2010 03:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 01 November 2010 13:33:47 Zac Medico (zmedico) wrote: |
| 3 |
>> zmedico 10/11/01 16:33:47 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Modified: portage-2.2.0_alpha1.ebuild portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild |
| 6 |
>> ChangeLog portage-2.2.0_alpha3.ebuild |
| 7 |
>> portage-2.2.0_alpha2.ebuild |
| 8 |
>> Log: |
| 9 |
>> Drop keywords from portage-2.2*, as a substitute for masking via |
| 10 |
>> package.mask. This alleviates issues for cases like bug #336692 in which |
| 11 |
>> people want to use profiles to unmask portage-2.2. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Does portage 2.1 have preserve-libs? If not, pretty please, readd the ~sparc- |
| 15 |
> fbsd and ~x86-fbsd keywords. We unmasked portage 2.2 a while ago because we |
| 16 |
> relied on preserve-libs for the upgrades. Esp. one where libc.so.6 becomes |
| 17 |
> libc.so.7... without preserve-libs its almost impossible to upgrade from one |
| 18 |
> release to another one without a full reinstall. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Alright, I've added back the *-fbsd keywords now. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives