| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
> I fully support the opinions stated above, and I simply cannot |
| 3 |
> comprehend what the big deal with ~arch masking vanilla-sources is. |
| 4 |
> Even *considering* the option of a separate package is ridiculous. As |
| 5 |
> long as developers are careful enough to not remove the ~arch mask |
| 6 |
> from any _pre kernel, I am perfectly fine, and I believe there |
| 7 |
> wouldn't be anyone who isn't fine. What are we trying to do-- make |
| 8 |
> sure people who insist on running the *unstable* profile actually |
| 9 |
> don't get the "unstable" sources. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well the fact is that an unstable kernel can be a whole lot more |
| 12 |
problematic than an unstable userland package. With userland, if it |
| 13 |
crashes, oh well, you can start it up again. With an unstable kernel |
| 14 |
you run the risk of hard locks and corrupted filesystems. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I know that I've used vanilla-sources on some systems where I'm using |
| 17 |
the ~arch profile, because I KNOW it will work correctly. Sometimes I |
| 18 |
don't want to mess around with experimental kernel patches. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There is also the package.mask if you feel that is |
| 21 |
> not enough, but this was also mentioned already. And the decision that |
| 22 |
> was taken is ... weird. What is the idea in having unstable (i.e. |
| 23 |
> ~masked) packages in the first place? Are you going to keep only |
| 24 |
> stable versions in vanilla-sources? What's the point? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The point is that vanilla-sources gets you stable release kernels all |
| 27 |
the time. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
>Why not move all |
| 30 |
> _pre, _alpha ane _beta versions of packages in separate directories? |
| 31 |
> As it was already mentioned, _pre kernels are more stable than many |
| 32 |
> other packages. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Well beta kernels already have their own category as |
| 35 |
development-sources. It is my understanding that this _pre category |
| 36 |
will also contain _rc kernels. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>The first one I can think of is gentoo-sources, that |
| 39 |
> insisted on corrupting my filesystem every now and then, so I couldn't |
| 40 |
> upgrade my glibc, without upgrading to vanilla-sources first (some |
| 41 |
> files were having funny contents during compilation but it was hard to |
| 42 |
> reproduce), and I am running vanilla-sources ever since. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I hope you filed a bug report :) I don't use gentoo-sources myself so I |
| 45 |
can't comment anymore than that. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Sorry for the tone, but I feel frustrated. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
No problem, you raise some issues that definitely do need to be |
| 51 |
addressed. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Matt Rickard |
| 55 |
frogger@g.o |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives