-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on  Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800:
> 
>> Since portage-2.2 isn't quite ready yet due to ongoing work in package
>> sets and preserve-libs, and I don't want ongoing work to hold back other
>> features that are stable, I'm planning to split a 2.1.6 branch from
>> trunk. This branch will have package sets and preserve-libs support
>> disabled. This branch will be named 2.1.6 in order to preserve
>> continuity such that the final portage-2.2 release will have all of the
>> features that have existed in previous portage-2.2 releases.
>>
>> In order to get testing on the new 2.1.6 branch, I plan to put
>> portage-2.2 back in package.mask until portage-2.1.6 has been marked
>> stable.
> 
> The idea is (or would be) good, but with kde4 being one of the biggest 
> and highest profile users of the new features including sets and with it 
> already ~arch, I'm not sure how practical putting 2.2 or set support back 
> in package mask really is.  Do we really want to deal with the PR and 
> other implications of putting kde4 back in package mask?
> 
> OTOH, maybe you've discussed it with the KDE project already and they 
> said do what you need to do.  Maybe after all that work on and delay for 
> sets, they've decided they can do without, for the time being?

I haven't talked to them about it but AFAIK it entirely possible to
use kde4 without package sets since the meta-ebuilds are available.

> IOW, preserve-libs I think you could get away with, but I just don't 
> think it's practical to even consider killing ~arch portage with set 
> support.  But I'm not a dev, and maybe it's just me. <shrug>

Well, package set support just isn't stable yet. We can make all of
the other features wait for it if that's what people really want to
do. <shrug>

- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkU5X0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNNNgCg1dQDZw7ZT5iSwc7vMMDGCrfs
YtEAoMPogQMnySq4kA7I7ANe7Hvpz0uF
=0T7f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to