On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:14:26AM +0100, Grobian wrote: > On 26-01-2006 21:33:17 -0600, Kito wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2006, at 2:22 AM, Grobian wrote: > > > > >On 25-01-2006 18:08:04 -0500, Nick Dimiduk wrote: > > > > > >>started putting together a .pkg (for my own uses) based on the most > > >>recent portage-2.1 ebuild and it occurred to me that this may not be > > >>appropriate. I'd be happy to clean it up for general distribution. > > > > > >Does 2.1 work properly on OSX? I have problems with 2.0.53 and up... > > > > Hmm? I think the problems you have are profile related, and not > > portage. The prefix branch works fine all the way up to svn trunk. > > Nope, it's related to the later portage tools dropping 'hardcoded > support' for OSX, that's why I haven't keyworded the newer version, > because it simply generates python stack traces for some tools (not > emerge), which I don't consider to be "good". It was deliberately not > fixed (sort of impossible), hence deliberately not keyworded by me.
What tools? Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling. ~harring
pgpQpBfHKTDKg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
