eix do not fully support cascading profiles, can not inherit # eix -u Reading Portage settings varsreader.cc:310 Can't open file /etc/../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/make.defaults: No such file or directory It should read /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/make.defaults instead, if /etc/../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/make.defaults don't exist. Using: Ebuild IndeX Version 0.2.1 Portage 2.0.51.19 (default-linux/x86/2005.0, gcc-3.3.4, glibc-2.3.4.20050125-r0, 2.6.11-gentoo-r2 i686) Yea, its an upstream issue.. and its already reported (see URL). Just to make sure the <g> mainteiner knows about it.
Seems that It's fixed on CVS.. patch needed?
a new version will be released in the next few days i.e. i will not update the older one(s)
Here's a problem with this buzilla page. Try searching bugzilla for eix, it won't return any bugs. So I couldn't find this bug until someone gave me the bug number. How do you correct that?
If you are searching with "Find a Specific Bug" you need to set the "Status:"-field to "ALL" .. this bug is closed, so it won't show up if you search for "Open" :)
This is a big problem now that 2005.0 is officially out. If you won't fix 0.2.1 (currently the lastest stable version on x86), then I think that a version that *does* work needs to be bumped to stable.
>> i will not update the older one(s) Ok, don't update them :-). But al least I think 0.2.2 should be on stable KEYWORD. I did not notice that cos' i'm on testing and (~x86 and ~amd64) but with 2005.0 out, this (again, IMHO) bug should be reopened until <=0.2.1 are removed from tree , patched or mark >=0.2.2 stable.
i can't bump 0.2.2 to stable for policy reasons (30 days bug-less blah blah)
I'm not a dev, but is keeping what is now a broken package in stable *really* according to policy? Looking at the dev handbook, the one-month "rule" doesn't appear to be absolute (emphasis mine): > *An* indication of the package's stability would be no verified or unresolved > bug report for a month after the version's introduction. But in the end: > It is up to the maintainer of the package to deem which versions are stable > or if development versions should be in package.mask or left in ~arch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't discretion indicate that there's reason for an accelerated update when a package becomes broken due to a new profile? Especially since AFAICS eix really shouldn't break anything else. Again, I'm not a dev, but these are my $0.02.
0.2.2 is now stable
:-)
