| 1 |
On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote: |
| 2 |
> I disagree. Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather |
| 3 |
> than an argument against keeping control of what you have from ~arch. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than |
| 6 |
=category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the former, you |
| 7 |
should take the latter into account and monitor the ebuild changes closely. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> In practice, I tend to do: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> =category/package-version* ~arch |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean |
| 14 |
> that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that |
| 15 |
> version. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version bump. And |
| 18 |
this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the ChangeLogs and |
| 19 |
referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this is not safe. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Carsten |
Archives