| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/30/2018 08:39 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
| 4 |
>> <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> I'd rather keyword the "fixed" portage version instead. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> If you can get this version marked stable, that will solve the |
| 9 |
>> problem. I don't know how many other unrelated changes are in .20 so |
| 10 |
>> I don't know how feasible a quick-stable is. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> There are a couple of important problems with portage-2.3.20 that are |
| 13 |
> fixed in portage-2.3.21, so you should use portage-2.3.21 instead: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> * Bug 645416 dep_zapdeps: fix virtual/rust handling (regression) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> * Bug 645780 add --changed-deps-report option (in order to help users |
| 18 |
> cope with the new --dynamic-deps=n default introduced in portage-2.3.20). |
| 19 |
> -- |
| 20 |
> Thanks, |
| 21 |
> Zac |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I believe there was some misunderstanding about my comment. |
| 24 |
I meant I prefer to add to our /etc/portage/package.keywords an entry |
| 25 |
for a portage version with this issue fixed. |
| 26 |
Per Zac's comment above, I'll do that for portage2.3.21. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Jorge. |
Archives