Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (portage 2.0.51_pre is good for the soul)

[Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>]

Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 1:35 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> 
>>On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
>>
>>>Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?
>>
>>I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)
> 
> 
> .51 also has many new features, IIRC. Maybe the reason isn't for testing, but 
> because repoman .51 is now neccesary?

repoman is horribly broken for multi-arch deps if you're not using 
portage 2.0.51_pre last i checked. and until portage 2.0.50-r10 you 
needed to use 2.0.51_pre in order to have tar not (incorrectly) break 
the sandbox on ~amd64. also, when i went to make a cascading profile for 
amd64/gcc34-2004.2 i noticed that portage 2.0.50 hung when i specified a 
default virtual for (i think) ruby, while portage 2.0.51 handled it 
without problems (i had to delete the virtual for compatibility). 
ferringb and jstubbs are getting tired of my endless bug reports. ;)

i'm probably forgetting other stuff, but those were the most annoying 
for me personally. i'd definately vote for getting portage 2.0.51 out 
the door as soon as possible. that is, as soon as any release blocker 
bugs are fixed... anything else can really be fixed after it's release, 
IMHO. the bugs in .51 cant be much worse than .50. :/

i like 2.0.51. it's actually been less stressfull here, so i guess i 
would recommend it.


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list