On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:08:43PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: > Hi, > > I've been using an old portage CVS snapshot for a few months, and > today i've finaly decided to sync it with SVN trunk. Ouch... that > was not such a great idea... First, some *.sh files were not > sourcing because of some typos. Then, once fixed, i've seen > portage starting to play with my root filesystem (missing $IMAGE in > dyn_preinst is not good...). Finally, looking at the SVN > changelog, i see that it doesn't get most of the fixes/improvements > that goes in 2.0. > So, i'm wondering: should i properly report this issues, or is > trunk completly given up? And the corollary question: if i was > about to update a few old small patches i have sitting on b.g.o, > what would be the right branch to work on? Is 2.0 opened to new > features again? Any updates to 2.1, I'd be curious about since it's bash core is the basis of 3.x
Regarding features, that's jasons thing; the intention was to nail 2.0 down, and move forward (last time this was discussed). ~harring
pgpprlfLVj5C9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
