Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:03:46
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans by Duncan <>
2 Hash: SHA1
4 Duncan wrote:
5 > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 4914D188.4010803@g.o,
6 > excerpted below, on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800:
7 >
8 >> Since portage-2.2 isn't quite ready yet due to ongoing work in package
9 >> sets and preserve-libs, and I don't want ongoing work to hold back other
10 >> features that are stable, I'm planning to split a 2.1.6 branch from
11 >> trunk. This branch will have package sets and preserve-libs support
12 >> disabled. This branch will be named 2.1.6 in order to preserve
13 >> continuity such that the final portage-2.2 release will have all of the
14 >> features that have existed in previous portage-2.2 releases.
15 >>
16 >> In order to get testing on the new 2.1.6 branch, I plan to put
17 >> portage-2.2 back in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has been marked
18 >> stable.
19 >
20 > The idea is (or would be) good, but with kde4 being one of the biggest
21 > and highest profile users of the new features including sets and with it
22 > already ~arch, I'm not sure how practical putting 2.2 or set support back
23 > in package mask really is. Do we really want to deal with the PR and
24 > other implications of putting kde4 back in package mask?
25 >
26 > OTOH, maybe you've discussed it with the KDE project already and they
27 > said do what you need to do. Maybe after all that work on and delay for
28 > sets, they've decided they can do without, for the time being?
30 I haven't talked to them about it but AFAIK it entirely possible to
31 use kde4 without package sets since the meta-ebuilds are available.
33 > IOW, preserve-libs I think you could get away with, but I just don't
34 > think it's practical to even consider killing ~arch portage with set
35 > support. But I'm not a dev, and maybe it's just me. <shrug>
37 Well, package set support just isn't stable yet. We can make all of
38 the other features wait for it if that's what people really want to
39 do. <shrug>
41 - --
42 Thanks,
43 Zac
45 Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
48 YtEAoMPogQMnySq4kA7I7ANe7Hvpz0uF
49 =0T7f
50 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Subject Author
[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>