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