| 1 |
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 18:19 -0700, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> I run gnome on my ~amd64 machine and have had no problems at all (so far). |
| 3 |
> IMHO it's safe to run gnome on an ~amd64 machine, but I've not used the |
| 4 |
> unstable gnome desktop on a stable amd64 machine. Just from past experience |
| 5 |
> I might expect problems from mixing stable/unstable in that manner. But |
| 6 |
> I can offer no evidence either way. |
| 7 |
I'm running testing GNOME on a "stable" system, with tesing |
| 8 |
audio/video/gfx/xorg stuff. |
| 9 |
Everything I consider "moving fast" is testing, the rest of the system |
| 10 |
is stable. Works good for me. Just that I have to unmask more and more |
| 11 |
base packages too, because they are a dependency of other unmasked |
| 12 |
packages... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
$ wc -l /etc/portage/package.* |
| 15 |
593 /etc/portage/package.keywords |
| 16 |
2 /etc/portage/package.mask |
| 17 |
32 /etc/portage/package.unmask |
| 18 |
23 /etc/portage/package.use |
| 19 |
650 total |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(cleaned number after checking for comments with |
| 22 |
$ egrep '^#' /etc/portage/package.* |
| 23 |
) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
$ eix -I --only-names | wc -l |
| 26 |
1194 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well... I wouldn't call a system with 50% testing packages officially |
| 29 |
"stable" - though it is. :D |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Bye, |
| 32 |
Daniel |
Archives