Why are we calling it 1.5.11, I would think it would be 1.5.2, or 1.5.1.1 (not as good). Blair On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Hello everyone! I just merged revisions r27709, r27710, r27711, r27719, r27720, r27773, r27779, comprising the latest work on mtree violations, into the release_1_5 branch in r27780, to make up for 1.5.11 very soon now. So soon that I could go ahead and release right now (all that's pending is just tagging and re-pointing the base/config/RELEASE_URL file), but I want to make sure we have this thing nailed down and done right before going for 1.5.11 in order to avoid having to tell users to upgrade a third time (1.5.11 will be the second ;-)
So, what's our status? I like the mtree violations feature a lot, dubbing it the trace mode compliment for cleanly building & installing ports, but it does seem a bit harsh to me to make its efect fatal errors (as expressed to mww on IRC yesterday). Are we gonna stay with warnings in the long run or just temporarily (until we see our ports tree cleansed of weird installation paths)? Also, are we gonna stick with a whitelist of "allowed paths" or go for a black one of "forbidden paths", as Landon suggested in a recent post?
In short, are we good to go for 1.5.11 for the time being? (even if its fixes are only temporary).
Regards,...
-jmpp
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev