Archives
Archives
| From: | Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] eclass caching fix. was More unhappy news for overlay-utilizing devs :( | ||
| Date: | Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:10:54 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20050222041033.GC29964@freedom.wit.com | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] eclass caching fix. was More unhappy news for overlay-utilizing devs :( by Donnie Berkholz |
||
| 1 | On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:01:17PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 | > If we should use it, it would be helpful if we didn't have to keep track |
| 3 | > of where it was (i.e., apply it to released portage as a patch). |
| 4 | E'yep. :) |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Until 2.0.51.16 is stabled, pushing patches into the tree isn't an option though. Pushing out a 2.0.51-r16 isn't |
| 7 | really viable. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | You actually just touched on the reason why portage is jumping from .51-rN to .51.N; so we can use the -rN version |
| 10 | component to push out patches while releases are being put through the testing process... |
| 11 | ~brian |
| 12 | |
| 13 | -- |
| 14 | gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] eclass caching fix. was More unhappy news for overlay-utilizing devs :( | Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> |