| 1 |
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100 |
| 2 |
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed |
| 5 |
> systems are totally |
| 6 |
> unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when |
| 7 |
> a mixed system is detected. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such |
| 10 |
> configurations is definitely not desirable. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell |
| 13 |
> them that for everything else, please use ~arch. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Really? So you’re telling me that if I want Drupal on my Web server, |
| 16 |
which if it breaks then takes a few minutes to revert to the previous |
| 17 |
version and has virtually zero chance of taking anything else down |
| 18 |
with it, then it’s “definitely not desirable…to encourage” me to use |
| 19 |
mixed keywords—instead I should be using ~arch versions of, say, glibc, |
| 20 |
iproute2, openssh, openrc, and the kernel, every single one of which, |
| 21 |
should it break, would be fixable only with a bus ride across the city, |
| 22 |
access to a locked room, wiring up a keyboard and monitor, and possibly |
| 23 |
booting from a live disk? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There’s breakage of one package, and then there’s breakage of the |
| 26 |
*system*. Running mixed versions may increase the chance of breakage of |
| 27 |
the particular package that’s ~arch as compared to running a full ~arch |
| 28 |
system, but as long as that package isn’t part of or needed by the |
| 29 |
system boot process, I can’t see how mixed versions could do anything |
| 30 |
but decrease the chance of breakage of the system as a whole. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Chris |
Archives