On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:50:10PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:26:49 -0800 > Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There also is the angle that deploying g55 requires waiting at least > > a full stage release (~year, at least by the old standards) to ensure > > people aren't screwed by the repository changing formats > > (unversioned!) under their feet. > > No it doesn't. It's transparent to users using an older package manager.
Would be useful if someone pulled older portage versions and checked exactly what they do in this case- explode, behave, etc (manifest behaviour included). It's been several years, but I recall portage having problems at the onset of EAPI w/ it. Beyond that, what I was stating was that the user doesn't get told "sorry, your manager is too old, upgrade"- kind of an unobvious failing. Frankly, in terms of g55 I don't particularly care if it were implemented- although I'd rather see it go in a seperate repo along w/ the dozen other fixups needed, preferably starting w/ overlays... ~harring
pgplVR5glWTvH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
