1 |
On Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008, Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> posted |
3 |
> 200801300220.21430.volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de, excerpted below, |
4 |
> |
5 |
> on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:20:21 +0100: |
6 |
> >> also adding --as-needed as LDFLAGS should help you save some time in |
7 |
> >> recompiling stuff.... |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > yeah - no. Don't do it. It breaks stuff. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I think the breakage in most of the common stuff Gentoo devs anyway use |
12 |
> has been fixed by now. I know I've had surprisingly few problems (read, |
13 |
> ZERO problems) with it here. Surprising, as I expected at least a few, |
14 |
> but I've seen exactly ZERO. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> That said, especially for those who just want things to work, without |
17 |
> having to futz with LDFLAGS and remerge something occasionally, I'd still |
18 |
> not recommend it. For those that enjoy the challenge of such things, |
19 |
> however, I'd say great! Go for it! And for those in the middle, well, |
20 |
> YMMV, as the saying goes. You probably lean one way or the other, so |
21 |
> take your pick. |
22 |
|
23 |
aren't bug reports with --as-needed closed as invalid per default? |
24 |
|
25 |
> |
26 |
> As for amd64 vs. ~amd64, I'm 100% ~amd64 here, and have been from when I |
27 |
> started on Gentoo. |
28 |
|
29 |
when I started with gentoo, there was no 'stable' or 'unstable'. |
30 |
|
31 |
And IMHO that was a lot better. But some day some people tried to turn gentoo |
32 |
into a 'debian from source'. |
33 |
|
34 |
> In fact, I've read suggestions that Gentoo tends to |
35 |
> work better at ~arch than at stable, because ~ is where most developers |
36 |
> are, and it's not uncommon for certain incompatibilities with "old" |
37 |
> software, that is, the crufty stable stuff from months or years ago |
38 |
> that's common in stable, to be overlooked until some poor stable keyword |
39 |
> user files a bug. Yes, before stabilizing, the arch-devs and arch- |
40 |
> testers normally test a package against a full-stable system, but it's |
41 |
> simply not possible to test against every permutation of USE flags and |
42 |
> mix of merged apps. While it's certainly true that ~arch packages have |
43 |
> the same issue, at least there there's a decently active community of |
44 |
> testers actively reporting bugs and devs fixing them. |
45 |
|
46 |
from my experience, go stable or unstable. But don't mix. And a better name |
47 |
for stable would be 'stale'. |
48 |
|
49 |
That said, a lot of problems who hit me as an unstable user hit my 'stable' |
50 |
friends too. So why use 'stable' at all? |
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> <brainstorming> What would be great would be a keyword system that would |
55 |
> allow just this, say ~ for initial testing, automatically upgraded to / |
56 |
> after the week UNLESS they've been marked ~~, with the extra ~ |
57 |
> automatically added to ~ packages by a script if a bug has been filed, |
58 |
> blocking the automatic upgrade to /, and a bugzilla keyword that a dev |
59 |
> could add to put the package back on automated / track if they've decided |
60 |
> the bug isn't worth derailing the automated / upgrade over. Then people |
61 |
> could go full testing ~ mode if they wanted, / mode if they wanted almost |
62 |
> ~ but wanted to be spared the pain of the most obvious bugs as found in |
63 |
> the initial testing wave, and full stable arch if they wanted crufty old |
64 |
> packages, say for a server only upgraded for security issues or the like, |
65 |
> somewhere. </brainstorming> |
66 |
|
67 |
what would be great would be recognizing that 'stable' does not work. |
68 |
|
69 |
> |
70 |
> Of course, YMMV, but ~ for the entire system, with appropriate site based |
71 |
> masking as Gentoo already makes possible with /etc/portage/package.mask |
72 |
> and the like, isn't as terrible or system breaking as some folks like to |
73 |
> make it out to be. By policy, ~ is only for stable track packages in the |
74 |
> first place. Obviously broken packages and those not considered stable |
75 |
> candidates normally never get even the ~ keyword, as they are kept in |
76 |
> development overlays or in the tree but without keywords or fully hard |
77 |
> masked, so ~ packages aren't the broken things a lot of people make them |
78 |
> out to be. |
79 |
|
80 |
exactly. |
81 |
|
82 |
~arch is not for broken packages, brocken or highly experimental stuff is in |
83 |
package.mask. |
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
gentoo-amd64@l.g.o mailing list |