| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
| 3 |
> <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I believe there was some misunderstanding about my comment. |
| 5 |
>> I meant I prefer to add to our /etc/portage/package.keywords an entry |
| 6 |
>> for a portage version with this issue fixed. |
| 7 |
>> Per Zac's comment above, I'll do that for portage2.3.21. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Thanks, |
| 10 |
>> Jorge. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You're going to ship unstable portage in stage3 just to avoid adding a |
| 14 |
> temporary portage config that users won't even see? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
AFAICS, the real solution here is not to try to play "whac-a-mole", |
| 17 |
but to get a consistent resolution by portage - which requires using a |
| 18 |
version that is currently unstable (pending stabilization at a later |
| 19 |
date). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Zac, |
| 22 |
do you foresee any issue with users getting a downgrade from 2.3.21 to |
| 23 |
the latest stable? At that point, the virtual providers were already |
| 24 |
picked, so they shouldn't be affected by this issue. Are there any |
| 25 |
features on 2.3.21 that may cause "regressions" is users end up |
| 26 |
downgrading to the current latest stable? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> That seems questionable, but I guess if it gets autobuilds back on |
| 29 |
> track, it's something. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> -Ben |
| 32 |
> |
Archives