From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14393 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2004 02:09:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (128.193.0.39) by eagle.gentoo.oregonstate.edu with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Jan 2004 02:09:48 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([128.193.0.34] helo=eagle.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AePcJ-0001YP-Ah for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:09:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 12071 invoked by uid 50004); 8 Jan 2004 02:09:46 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 24832 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2004 02:09:46 +0000 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Wed, 7 Jan 04 21:09:45 -0500 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:07:28 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.94 References: <200401072241.31391.jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> <20040107172838.2671f1dc@sven.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20040107172838.2671f1dc@sven.genone.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200401081107.28773.jasonstubbs@gawab.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Bugzilla "Feature" Bugs X-Archives-Salt: ab41bdc0-c212-47b2-af30-640d2cc6bc18 X-Archives-Hash: 203e97ff638a036b7923c610af613492 On Thursday 08 January 2004 01:28, Marius Mauch wrote: > On 01/07/04 Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've just been going through some of the unresolved bugs and have > > found(especially in the earlier bug #s) that there are many feature > > requests that are unresolved. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to > > create a "master" bug for portage-ng and then make it depend on all of > > these unresolved feature requests. Pros? It would make it easy to > > confirm that there's nothing missing from the reqspec and also make it > > easy to close many (hundreds?) of bugs on portage-ng's completion. > > Cons? Massive amount of deps from a single bug. Thoughts? > > Actually there already is a bug for that, check for "portage 3". > Although it is not really used lately. Bug #2765 entitled "Portage 3 TODO"? The first comment actually implies that it's a Portage 2 TODO, but anyway... Do you think it's worth reviving this bug? If given the okay, I'll start going through outstanding bugs and adding deps to anything that is a feature request. -- Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list