Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800 > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > Disabled as in FEATURES="-preserve-libs" and an almost empty > sets.conf, or disabled as in "remove all traces from the code"? I think the relevant APIs should be made private so that people won't write code that relies on them, and things like sets.conf and /var/lib/portage/world_sets should be completely disabled so that people won't rely on them either. - -- Thanks, Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkVJ6sACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOZqQCffLU2qPkOfTNEzvXtKw7l4+v6 XVAAoL8hP/xVPk4n9D1/qkoDdktyhutO =WI9Q -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:38:48 -0800 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Disabled as in FEATURES="-preserve-libs" and an almost empty sets.conf, or disabled as in "remove all traces from the code"? Marius
[gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] portage-2.1.6 release plans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, Lots of people have expressed an urgent desire to have a stable version of portage that includes EAPI 2 support and automatic blocker resolution for cases like bug 244511. 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. Does this plan sound good? Are there any objections or suggestions? - -- Thanks, Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkU0YUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOSfgCg7OVXmAPj48uaNpZ30NteH/DH QzMAoNHOHklCppYWUJn5oMUR//2Xu5hp =w6Wo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
