Why are we calling it 1.5.11, I would think it would be 1.5.2, or
1.5.1.1 (not as good).
Blair
On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Hello everyone! I just merged revisions r27709, r27710, r27711,
r27719, r27720, r27773, r27779, comprising the latest work on mtree
violations, into the release_1_5 branch in r27780, to make up for
1.5.11 very soon now. So soon that I could go ahead and release
right now (all that's pending is just tagging and re-pointing the
base/config/RELEASE_URL file), but I want to make sure we have this
thing nailed down and done right before going for 1.5.11 in order
to avoid having to tell users to upgrade a third time (1.5.11 will
be the second ;-)
So, what's our status? I like the mtree violations feature a lot,
dubbing it the trace mode compliment for cleanly building &
installing ports, but it does seem a bit harsh to me to make its
efect fatal errors (as expressed to mww on IRC yesterday). Are we
gonna stay with warnings in the long run or just temporarily (until
we see our ports tree cleansed of weird installation paths)? Also,
are we gonna stick with a whitelist of "allowed paths" or go for a
black one of "forbidden paths", as Landon suggested in a recent post?
In short, are we good to go for 1.5.11 for the time being? (even
if its fixes are only temporary).
Regards,...
-jmpp
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
