| 1 |
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords |
| 5 |
>>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages |
| 6 |
>>> might still keep them. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system |
| 9 |
>> provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will |
| 10 |
>> start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable |
| 11 |
>> tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had |
| 14 |
> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not |
| 15 |
> running ~arch on most libs. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed |
| 18 |
systems are totally |
| 19 |
unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when |
| 20 |
a mixed system is detected. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such |
| 23 |
configurations is definitely not desirable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell |
| 26 |
them that for everything else, please use ~arch. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 31 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |
Archives