Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
>> spinning, like to reduce it
>>
>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
>> use udisks anymore
>>
>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
>> required
>>
>> thanks,
>> samuli
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
> unstable packages as much as possible.
>
> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
> braking anything unnecessarily?


I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong
with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly.

What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other
basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc
with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain
to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever
tested that combination).

What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package
(xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly
unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's
purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and
the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed.

So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with
everything else you have.

The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can
possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big
picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done
above.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com