| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:08:43PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I've been using an old portage CVS snapshot for a few months, and |
| 5 |
> today i've finaly decided to sync it with SVN trunk. Ouch... that |
| 6 |
> was not such a great idea... First, some *.sh files were not |
| 7 |
> sourcing because of some typos. Then, once fixed, i've seen |
| 8 |
> portage starting to play with my root filesystem (missing $IMAGE in |
| 9 |
> dyn_preinst is not good...). Finally, looking at the SVN |
| 10 |
> changelog, i see that it doesn't get most of the fixes/improvements |
| 11 |
> that goes in 2.0. |
| 12 |
> So, i'm wondering: should i properly report this issues, or is |
| 13 |
> trunk completly given up? And the corollary question: if i was |
| 14 |
> about to update a few old small patches i have sitting on b.g.o, |
| 15 |
> what would be the right branch to work on? Is 2.0 opened to new |
| 16 |
> features again? |
| 17 |
Any updates to 2.1, I'd be curious about since it's bash core is the |
| 18 |
basis of 3.x |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Regarding features, that's jasons thing; the intention was to nail 2.0 |
| 21 |
down, and move forward (last time this was discussed). |
| 22 |
~harring |
Archives