From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3697 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 19:56:53 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 19:56:53 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C2bDw-0006sO-IX for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:56:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 9504 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2004 19:56:52 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 16346 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 19:56:51 +0000 Message-ID: <41362A07.8080009@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:59:03 -0400 From: Travis Tilley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040811) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luke-Jr CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <52d1aa13e7ad93c6acba03290facc9bb@mudra> <20040901142543.17fcedea@thelair> <200409011535.35368.carlo@gentoo.org> <200409011650.23351.luke-jr@utopios.org> In-Reply-To: <200409011650.23351.luke-jr@utopios.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (portage 2.0.51_pre is good for the soul) X-Archives-Salt: 92ce6fae-eb27-44fb-811a-4d46331648f0 X-Archives-Hash: 63cb961975c4657d53464ff1e18b68e0 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list