| 1 |
On 05/01/2013 02:07 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Zac, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@×××.de> |
| 7 |
>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> The most annoying fact is, that none of this would have been necessary |
| 9 |
>>> with portage 2.2, but maybe we have to wait for 2.1.11.500 before 2.2 |
| 10 |
>>> gets stable... |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Since portage-2.1.11.20 [1], you can do this: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> echo 'FEATURES="${FEATURES} preserve-libs"' >> /etc/portage/make.conf |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> [1] |
| 17 |
>> [http://blogs.gentoo.org/zmedico/2012/09/21/preserve-libs-available-in-portage-2-1/ |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That announcement slipped somehow my awareness. Indeed an upgrade of a |
| 20 |
> different machine with preserve-libs added to FEATURES went fine. Still, I |
| 21 |
> wonder what prevents portage-2.2 form going stable, I have one machine where |
| 22 |
> I use that one for years without any flaws and a lot of benefits. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think it's more useful to talk about specific features and their |
| 25 |
readiness to be enabled by default in stable, rather then when |
| 26 |
"everything in portage-2.2" should go stable. Which features in |
| 27 |
portage-2.2 are you using that are ready for stable? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not that the difference between portage-2.1 and portage-2.2 is just the |
| 30 |
constants that you can see in this commit: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=92ce3fcbf2c6d791151afc6edbbb18a530db12e2 |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Thanks, |
| 35 |
Zac |
Archives