| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords |
| 4 |
>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages |
| 5 |
>> might still keep them. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system |
| 8 |
> provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will |
| 9 |
> start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable |
| 10 |
> tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had |
| 13 |
problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not |
| 14 |
running ~arch on most libs. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I've seen lots of talk about stable being less reliable than ~arch, |
| 17 |
and ~arch applications on a stable core being unreliable, but I've |
| 18 |
never actually seen any real evidence that either is true. Granted, |
| 19 |
I'm not necessarily expecting a scientific study, but I haven't even |
| 20 |
heard anecdotes. I can't offer much personally - I only really use |
| 21 |
stable to any extent and I find it works just fine other than the |
| 22 |
occasional need to unmask something. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives