| 1 |
On Thursday 08 January 2004 01:28, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/07/04 Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi all, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have |
| 6 |
> > found(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature |
| 7 |
> > requests that are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to |
| 8 |
> > create a "master" bug for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of |
| 9 |
> > these unresolved feature requests. Pros? It would make it easy to |
| 10 |
> > confirm that there's nothing missing from the reqspec and also make it |
| 11 |
> > easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on portage-ng's completion. |
| 12 |
> > Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug. Thoughts? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Actually there already is a bug for that, check for "portage 3". |
| 15 |
> Although it is not really used lately. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Bug #2765 entitled "Portage 3 TODO"? The first comment actually implies that |
| 18 |
it's a Portage 2 TODO, but anyway... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Do you think it's worth reviving this bug? If given the okay, I'll start going |
| 21 |
through outstanding bugs and adding deps to anything that is a feature |
| 22 |
request. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives