| 1 |
Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Mick<michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> You need portage-2.2 to be able to use sets. |
| 5 |
>> Sadly, 2.1.10.11 is the latest marked stable for ~amd64. (Or was, last |
| 6 |
>> time I synced.) |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> It'll be nice when it's available, though. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I been using the unstable portage for a long time. Since I built this |
| 12 |
> rig if I recall correctly. It works fine but it does get updated pretty |
| 13 |
> regular. Zac is always adding some new frills and shiney things. ;-) I |
| 14 |
> wouldn't blame you for staying stable but it works fine here on my amd64 |
| 15 |
> and old x86 rig. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Devs don't seem to like bug reports involving mixes of stable and |
| 18 |
unstable. I was mildly scolded for filing a bug report against xemacs' |
| 19 |
failing to build with libpng15, when xemacs was stable, and libpng15 |
| 20 |
wasn't, yet. I'm trying to being slightly more conservative about what I |
| 21 |
unmask. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Between autounmask and specific desires to be on top of some packages, |
| 24 |
it's not easy. For example, stable WINE hasn't built since February |
| 25 |
2011... ( https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354745 ) Anyone who |
| 26 |
needs WINE for any reason needs to use their unstable 1.3.x tree. This |
| 27 |
isn't expected to be fixed until this coming *March*, when ICU 49 goes |
| 28 |
generally available. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
/rant |
Archives