> "KF" == Kristian Fiskerstrand
> writes:
KF> I'm not familiar with any large difference.
I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I
currently run. Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg.
I did get the impression from the sks list that db5 worked be
> "MG" == Michał Górny writes:
MG> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
MG> James Cloos napisał(a):
>> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
>> dependencies to depend on 5.3 instead of whichever 4.x they
>> currently demand.
>> Unmasking the earlier 5.x releases seems u
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 17:40:16
James Cloos napisał(a):
> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better with 5.3
> than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to be done with care.
>
> So it should be fine to unmask 5.3 and slowly update reverse
> dependencies to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/30/2014 11:40 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MG" == Mike Gilbert writes:
>
> I've read that some heavy users of db, such as sks, work better
> with 5.3 than they did with older versions. But upgrading needs to
> be done with care.
>
I'm
> "MG" == Mike Gilbert writes:
MG> For example, I think the major reason for the sys-libs/db mask is a
MG> weird licensing issue. It's still nice to have it in the tree.
That only applies to db:6.0.
I know debian and ubuntu primarily use 5.3 these days, with the only
issues being related
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:46:04PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> > package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> > description.
> >
> > H
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
> package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
> description.
>
> Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
> should be
All,
Rich Freeman asked, in another thread, for specific examples of old
package.mask entries that just have "masked for testing" as the
description.
Here is what I found with a quick look through package.mask. These
should be cleaned up by either 1) removing the mask or 2) booting the
affected p
