| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I've been using an old portage CVS snapshot for a few months, and |
| 4 |
today i've finaly decided to sync it with SVN trunk. Ouch... that |
| 5 |
was not such a great idea... First, some *.sh files were not |
| 6 |
sourcing because of some typos. Then, once fixed, i've seen |
| 7 |
portage starting to play with my root filesystem (missing $IMAGE in |
| 8 |
dyn_preinst is not good...). Finally, looking at the SVN |
| 9 |
changelog, i see that it doesn't get most of the fixes/improvements |
| 10 |
that goes in 2.0. |
| 11 |
So, i'm wondering: should i properly report this issues, or is |
| 12 |
trunk completly given up? And the corollary question: if i was |
| 13 |
about to update a few old small patches i have sitting on b.g.o, |
| 14 |
what would be the right branch to work on? Is 2.0 opened to new |
| 15 |
features again? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Thanks, |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
TGL. |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives