| 1 |
> > crowd actually provides feedback to their development. More like |
| 2 |
> > those RPM based distros :) |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Especially because many tools I find are undeservingly masked are |
| 5 |
> > developer oriented so there's a greater chance feedback will be sane |
| 6 |
> > and prompt. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I'd propose to loosen this policy a bit, but then again who am I? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Jani |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > cc: please |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > -- |
| 16 |
> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Just my quick .02... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You can always mask packages which are ~arch. After all, ~arch is the |
| 21 |
> "testing" branch in Gentoo, and not really considered an "unstable" |
| 22 |
> branch. If you're willing to participate in testing, then you should |
| 23 |
> probably have KEYWORDS=~arch in your /etc/make.conf anyway. The |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd like to test/use latest versions of most packages but not the latest |
| 26 |
glibc for instance or something which might destabilize the whole |
| 27 |
system. They are both under the same hat with the current ~arch setup. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Also if only packages with no bugs in them should be stable then |
| 30 |
probably only /bin/yes, /bin/false, /bin/true and TeX would make it :) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives