ferringb at gentoo
Jan 27, 2006, 10:12 AM
Post #9 of 14
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.
Granted, buttload of portage bugs (thus easy to miss something), but
portage bundled tools should be forcing sys.path mangling.