From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FKNVP-0006Ql-QH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:33:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2HMVPh9012729; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:31:25 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2HMQq9O011762 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:26:52 GMT Received: from hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9849B1F52D3 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:26:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by hades.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592CC1F52D2 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:26:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6) with ESMTP id 11965669 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:26:52 +0100 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] cdb with portage 2.1 (was: CVSup vs Gentoo's Rsync) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:26:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <1140516464.23492.2.camel@neuromancer.home.net> <200602241647.10005.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603172326.51894.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 01a058f2-8bcd-4edb-b424-384b9e80d571 X-Archives-Hash: 8b800935c644316e169bd7a52becdcbc On Friday 17 March 2006 19:24, Alexander Skwar wrote: > > Is anyone using CDB with Portage 2.1? with the latest portage incarnations it does not work anymore at all. But portage got a lot speedier too, so the problem is not soo big. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list