On Sunday 07 June 2009 17:21:20 walt wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > ... > > I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to > > support sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of > > portage at Zac's whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately > > and at once went away when I did this... > > Maybe that's why I remember using @preserved-rebuild once or maybe twice. > I'm running the same portage now on x86, ~x86, and ~amd64, i.e. 2.1.6.13, > which apparently doesn't know about sets. portage-2.2_rc33 is masked on > my profiles.
The only reason it's masked is to force as many users as possible to use an earlier version so that it "can receive more testing and get better bug reports", and that was done by Zac himself. There is not a single technical or code quality reason for it to be masked, it's purely a human issue Just unmask portage and be done with it, I can't recall the last time there was a valid problem with latest portage reported here so it must have been a very long time ago. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
