| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:50:10PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:26:49 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > There also is the angle that deploying g55 requires waiting at least |
| 5 |
> > a full stage release (~year, at least by the old standards) to ensure |
| 6 |
> > people aren't screwed by the repository changing formats |
| 7 |
> > (unversioned!) under their feet. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No it doesn't. It's transparent to users using an older package manager. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Would be useful if someone pulled older portage versions and checked |
| 12 |
exactly what they do in this case- explode, behave, etc (manifest |
| 13 |
behaviour included). It's been several years, but I recall portage |
| 14 |
having problems at the onset of EAPI w/ it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Beyond that, what I was stating was that the user doesn't get told |
| 17 |
"sorry, your manager is too old, upgrade"- kind of an unobvious |
| 18 |
failing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Frankly, in terms of g55 I don't particularly care if it were |
| 21 |
implemented- although I'd rather see it go in a seperate repo along w/ |
| 22 |
the dozen other fixups needed, preferably starting w/ overlays... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
~harring |
Archives