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