| 1 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> posted 4914D188.4010803@g.o, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Since portage-2.2 isn't quite ready yet due to ongoing work in package |
| 5 |
> sets and preserve-libs, and I don't want ongoing work to hold back other |
| 6 |
> features that are stable, I'm planning to split a 2.1.6 branch from |
| 7 |
> trunk. This branch will have package sets and preserve-libs support |
| 8 |
> disabled. This branch will be named 2.1.6 in order to preserve |
| 9 |
> continuity such that the final portage-2.2 release will have all of the |
| 10 |
> features that have existed in previous portage-2.2 releases. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In order to get testing on the new 2.1.6 branch, I plan to put |
| 13 |
> portage-2.2 back in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has been marked |
| 14 |
> stable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The idea is (or would be) good, but with kde4 being one of the biggest |
| 17 |
and highest profile users of the new features including sets and with it |
| 18 |
already ~arch, I'm not sure how practical putting 2.2 or set support back |
| 19 |
in package mask really is. Do we really want to deal with the PR and |
| 20 |
other implications of putting kde4 back in package mask? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
OTOH, maybe you've discussed it with the KDE project already and they |
| 23 |
said do what you need to do. Maybe after all that work on and delay for |
| 24 |
sets, they've decided they can do without, for the time being? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
IOW, preserve-libs I think you could get away with, but I just don't |
| 27 |
think it's practical to even consider killing ~arch portage with set |
| 28 |
support. But I'm not a dev, and maybe it's just me. <shrug> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives