| 1 |
On 11 July 2012 14:23, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2012-07-11 12:17 PM, Alex Schuster <wonko@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Then you probably need portage 2.2 for this. Which will never ever become |
| 5 |
>> stable it seems, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Can anyone comment on *why* it is taking so long? It is beginning to border |
| 9 |
> on ridiculous - if it is ready (which I seem to recall lots of references to |
| 10 |
> 'why are you still using 2.1??), why not just stabilize it already? I try |
| 11 |
> really hard not to run anything unstable unless I absolutely have to (for |
| 12 |
> obvious reasons)... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210077 <--- This is why it's |
| 16 |
taking so long, there are still MANY bugs that should really be fixed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Part of why it's taking so long for those bugs to be fixed is because |
| 19 |
programmatic sets and preserve-libs aren't a priority, but things like |
| 20 |
supporting new EAPIs and such are a far bigger priority. |
Archives