[gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[gottlieb]

I was away for two weeks.  I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in
testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree).

Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
used 2.2 for years with success.

thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Dale]

gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> I was away for two weeks.  I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in
> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree).
>
> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
> from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
> used 2.2 for years with success.
>
> thanks,
> allan
>
>

I use unstable here and the only difference I have seen is the addition
of more options, better handling of blocks and such as that.  I would
upgrade and then give the man page a good looking over.  You may find
some things there that interest you and may be helpful in some situations. 

I don't recall any commands changing tho.  Still emerge and such. 

Hope that helps.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[gottlieb]

On Tue, Aug 27 2013, Dale wrote:

> gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
>> I was away for two weeks.  I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in
>> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree).
>>
>> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
>> from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
>> used 2.2 for years with success.
>>
>> thanks,
>> allan
>>
>>
>
> I use unstable here and the only difference I have seen is the addition
> of more options, better handling of blocks and such as that.  I would
> upgrade and then give the man page a good looking over.  You may find
> some things there that interest you and may be helpful in some situations. 
>
> I don't recall any commands changing tho.  Still emerge and such. 
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Dale

I does indeed.
Thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:27:30 -0400, gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:

> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
> from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
> used 2.2 for years with success.

The commands will, but there may be better alternatives in 2.2.

Man page time :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-27 5:27 PM, gottlieb@nyu.edu <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
> I was away for two weeks.  I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in
> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree).
>
> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
> from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
> used 2.2 for years with success.

So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable???

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Alan McKinnon]

On 28/08/2013 13:04, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-27 5:27 PM, gottlieb@nyu.edu <gottlieb@nyu.edu> wrote:
>> I was away for two weeks.  I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in
>> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree).
>>
>> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands
>> from 2.1.x.y will continue to work?  I know that several readers have
>> used 2.2 for years with success.
> 
> So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable???
> 


100+ alpha/beta releases
200+ rc releases

what do you think?



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 275 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable???

Give it a chance! It's only just come out of rc. Until recently it
wasn't even available in testing without umasking.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Does fuzzy logic tickle?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[»Q«]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:

> So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable???

Hopefully, 2.2.1 will be stabilized.  See zmedico's comments 5 and 6 at
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478904#c5>.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-28 7:24 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable???
>
> Give it a chance! It's only just come out of rc. Until recently it
> wasn't even available in testing without umasking.

Ok, sorry, I totally missed the significance, didn't even notice that it 
meant it had come out of RC. I was just going by the fact that it has 
been around for - what, years? - with never-ending beta/rc releases, and 
I just thought this was another new rc or something...

So, glad to hear it might actually be getting close now... :)