| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:11:38 +0100, Momesso Andrea wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > No, but they are stable, and required for sets as the OP wanted. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Doesn't look really stable: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> # Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> (05 Jan 2009) |
| 8 |
> # Portage 2.2 is masked due to known bugs in the |
| 9 |
> # package sets and preserve-libs features. |
| 10 |
> >=sys-apps/portage-2.2_pre |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That depends on the severity of the known bugs, and the likelihood of |
| 13 |
meeting them. The only real bug I've had is that I had to emerge |
| 14 |
@preserved-rebuild several times, after one update, before it would go |
| 15 |
away. A waste of CPU cycles but hardly a stability threat. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Top Oxymorons Number 12: Plastic glasses |
Archives