Summary: | sys-apps/portage-2.1.7.16 stable request | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Zac Medico <zmedico> |
Component: | Conceptual/Abstract Ideas | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 2.1 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 288499, 297255 |
Description
Zac Medico
2010-01-24 03:52:34 UTC
Looks like there is a dep here on python-3. I haven't seen a request for python-3 stablization yet; thoughts? (In reply to comment #1) > Looks like there is a dep here on python-3. I haven't seen a request for > python-3 stablization yet; thoughts? It's optional, since it's conditional on the python3 flag. If the python team wants to stabilize, that's fine. Alternatively, we could mask that flag in package.use.mask so that repoman won't complain. Arfrever says they plan to stablize python-3.1.2 but that's not in the tree yet, so I've temporarily masked the python3 flag for sys-apps/portage-2.1.7* in profiles/base/package.use.mask. Stable for HPPA. ppc64 done ppc stable alpha/arm/ia64/m68k/s390/sh/sparc/x86 stable For the record, current stable portpeek-1.5.7.2 does not work with portage-2.1.7.16: $ portpeek -ar package.keywords: Could not find file etc/portage/package.keywords No ebuild options found. package.unmask: Could not find file etc/portage/package.unmask No ebuild options found. package.mask: Could not find file etc/portage/package.mask No ebuild options found. Done Upgrading to portpeek-1.5.7.3 solved this issue. Push it to stable as well? (In reply to comment #8) > Upgrading to portpeek-1.5.7.3 solved this issue. Push it to stable as well? A new bug would be appropriate. Thanks. amd64 stable. closing bug. |