| 1 |
On Monday 19 June 2006 10:58, Trenton Adams wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be |
| 3 |
> > > that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some |
| 4 |
> > > of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file |
| 7 |
> > a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a |
| 10 |
> requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out |
| 11 |
> instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. |
| 12 |
> It would just add another level of safety. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If an ebuild is removed from the tree while you still need it then chances are |
| 15 |
that others need it too. Then it is indeed a bug. If you need an ebuild that |
| 16 |
has been removed from the tree it is available from the cvs [1]. As mentioned |
| 17 |
in my previous mail cvs is going to be replaced by a superior VCS hopefully |
| 18 |
within this year. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives