Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Status of SVN trunk?

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:21:21 -0500
Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:

> Any updates to 2.1, I'd be curious about since it's bash core is
> the basis of 3.x

The savior's bash code seems sane compared to the trunk's one.  It
doesn't have the typos ("$Header$" lines in a few .sh files and
missing ";;" in the unpack() case for RAR), nor the bug in
dyn_preinst() which makes portage play with the root filesystem
(missing "local IMAGE=${D}").  A vimdiff beetween the "svn blame
ebuild-default-functions.sh" of this two branches seems to show that
all it mainly lacks is a bunch of cosmetic changes (commit #1893 -
warning though: that's also were some of the above cited bugs were
introduced, so don't apply the whole thing).

Now, compared to 2.0 (and just reading changelog), i see:
 - some patches missing in both branches: some are new stuffs 
i'm sure you're already aware of (EBUILD_DEATH_HOOK, EAPI support,
etc.), other are fixes (lchown/lchgrp for instance, but i also see
something about .tar unpacking in changelog which seems to apply,
etc.).
 - some missing in trunk only (CCACHE_DIR fix for instance). 

I'm okay to try to make some more detailed report with patches, but
i would first like to know whether trunk is going anywhere. I mean,
it's obvious that atm noone uses it since it's not even
syntacticaly correct. That, plus some bugs closed as dups of #102126
without beeing fixed, makes me wonder... Oh, and also this recent
email from Marius on gentoo-dev@: 

> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:00:56 +0000
> Alec Joseph Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> wrote:
>
> > FYI elog is implemented in CVS ( 2.1 ).  When it will be
> > released is anyone's guess.
>
> 2.1? probably never, but elog will almost certainly be backported
> to the 2.0 branch.
>
> Marius

Anyway, don't take me wrong, i'm not trying to flame anyone about
how portage development is done, or whatever.  If the new route is
to backport some of the long awaited features to 2.0 until 3.x is
ready, it's fine for me.  It's really just that i have a bit of
free time this days, so i was thinking of updating a few stuffs i
would like to see included someday (bugs #85786, #83613, #90444,
#84884, #37498 and #34964 comes to mind), and for that i need to
know what would be the prefered target.

Thanks,

-- 
TGL.
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list