| 1 |
On 11/29/05, Alex Bennee <alex@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:52 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > A questions though. Just because an app is not tested on AMD64, and |
| 5 |
> > hence not keyworded with amd64 or ~amd64, doesn't mean it has a |
| 6 |
> > problem, does it? It just means it's not tested, right? Or am I |
| 7 |
> > incorrect in that? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sure, but you it depends if you want to make all x86 (but not amd64 or |
| 10 |
> ~amd64) apps available. My personal preference is to clone the ebuilds |
| 11 |
> of stuff I want to try that hasn't got an amd keyword of one sort or |
| 12 |
> another into my overlay directory and then build them. This means my |
| 13 |
> systems is: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> * mainly stable amd64 packages |
| 16 |
> * with a selection of ~amd64 packages (via package.keywords) |
| 17 |
> * with a few cloned/overlayed x86 only builds manually editied to be |
| 18 |
> ~amd64 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Hopefully this stops you whole system being pulled into an unstable |
| 21 |
> state. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, I hope so. Since I never build with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" but |
| 24 |
rather put all keywords in package.keywords, I've rebuilt almost all |
| 25 |
the ~x86 applications with ~amd64. I have not done the --emptytree |
| 26 |
rebuild yet and may not for the next week or two just to see how |
| 27 |
things go. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks for the strategies. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
cheers, |
| 32 |
Mark |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives