On Monday 01 November 2010 13:33:47 Zac Medico (zmedico) wrote:
> zmedico 10/11/01 16:33:47
>
> Modified: portage-2.2.0_alpha1.ebuild portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild
> ChangeLog portage-2.2.0_alpha3.ebuild
> portage-2.2.0_alpha2.ebuild
> Log:
> Drop keywords from portage-2.2*, as a substitute for masking via
> package.mask. This alleviates issues for cases like bug #336692 in which
> people want to use profiles to unmask portage-2.2.


Does portage 2.1 have preserve-libs? If not, pretty please, readd the ~sparc-
fbsd and ~x86-fbsd keywords. We unmasked portage 2.2 a while ago because we
relied on preserve-libs for the upgrades. Esp. one where libc.so.6 becomes
libc.so.7... without preserve-libs its almost impossible to upgrade from one
release to another one without a full reinstall.

A.

On 11/02/2010 03:20 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 13:33:47 Zac Medico (zmedico) wrote:
>> zmedico 10/11/01 16:33:47
>>
>> Modified: portage-2.2.0_alpha1.ebuild portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild
>> ChangeLog portage-2.2.0_alpha3.ebuild
>> portage-2.2.0_alpha2.ebuild
>> Log:
>> Drop keywords from portage-2.2*, as a substitute for masking via
>> package.mask. This alleviates issues for cases like bug #336692 in which
>> people want to use profiles to unmask portage-2.2.
>
>
> Does portage 2.1 have preserve-libs? If not, pretty please, readd the ~sparc-
> fbsd and ~x86-fbsd keywords. We unmasked portage 2.2 a while ago because we
> relied on preserve-libs for the upgrades. Esp. one where libc.so.6 becomes
> libc.so.7... without preserve-libs its almost impossible to upgrade from one
> release to another one without a full reinstall.
>
> A.

Alright, I've added back the *-fbsd keywords now.

--
Thanks,
Zac