| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
> Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine |
| 3 |
> with it. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user. |
| 6 |
> One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and |
| 7 |
> cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might emerge 5.16.3 only to hit a |
| 8 |
> module later that insists on 5.12.4, thus requiring downgrading. There are |
| 9 |
> other examples where dependencies track stable but not unstable. This is in |
| 10 |
> addition to the usual breakage on the bleeding edge. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There is a chance to be a bit off-topic here but I don't consider this |
| 13 |
being a problem for two reasons. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
First, mips profiles were marked 'experimental' so we missed a lot of |
| 16 |
repoman functionality :) |
| 17 |
Moreover, the problem you mentioned is a packaging issue which needs |
| 18 |
to be fixed. |
| 19 |
Having more people testing this as part of their regular testing can |
| 20 |
only improve |
| 21 |
the user experience in the end. |
| 22 |
For such arches, my personal opinion is that most people have been running ~arch |
| 23 |
all along because stable was lagging so far behind. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> Or no serious negative feedback. I don't think you will. I can support |
| 27 |
> this. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thank you! |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 34 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives