| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:26 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Dale did |
| 2 |
opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too. It is coming |
| 7 |
> >> but just not sure when. Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting |
| 8 |
> >> closer to that time. It, like some of the newer versions of portage, |
| 9 |
> >> appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked |
| 10 |
> >> stable yet. Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is |
| 13 |
> > certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version |
| 14 |
> > coming out every day at the moment,. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Well, I run unstable portage here and it seems stable and reliable to |
| 17 |
> me. I know they are adding things and fixing things pretty regular but |
| 18 |
> most packages do that anyway and a lot of them are marked as stable. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I read somewhere that the reason some of the later versions of portage |
| 21 |
> are not stable is not because the new ones are not ready but because |
| 22 |
> they want more testing of the old versions. Not sure why that is tho. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Dale |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> :-) :-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
$PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
# Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> (05 Jan 2009) |
| 32 |
# Portage 2.2 is masked due to known bugs in the |
| 33 |
# package sets and preserve-libs features. See |
| 34 |
# bug #253802 for details. |
| 35 |
>=sys-apps/portage-2.2_pre |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The old message for =sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc1 said something different, like |
| 38 |
"to enable further testing of the 2.1.6 series" |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives