Hi,
my opinion is to make the sync machanism more intelligent in this way.
I don't want to have a tree with 2 stable versions or old versions of
ebuilds.
My idea is to let the actual(old) installed ebuild version untouched so you
are able to downgrade after an update, and you are although able to
cilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:59:42 +0200:
> On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:53 PM, cilly wrote:
>
>> Of course, there are bugs in every version. Sometimes a user must be
>> able to choose which bug is more problematic, i.e. the bug in the new
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
That is not by purpose. Most people clean-up a package when
stabilisation round has been done. So I must say clarify my first
statement: I think it is a good idea to have old stable versions in
the
tree, but that should be the choice
Richard Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One thing that I noticed is that in many cases there are multiple
> testing versions of a package available, and one stable version. So,
> if you run unstable you can pick and choose, but if you're running
> stable (which in theory should be the target audi
On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
PS: other topics to be discussed `Not to modify ebuilds which are
already in the tree... even if masked` what do you think?
Explain please.
I will start a new topic on that.
cec
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
cilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What do you think?
I agree with that.
> PS: other topics to be discussed `Not to modify ebuilds which are
> already in the tree... even if masked` what do you think?
Explain please.
--
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.faulhammer.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/
si
