1 |
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:03:44 -0500 |
2 |
Chris Walters <cjw2004d@×××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I find these paragraphs to be rude and insulting. I am not an idiot |
5 |
> - I know exactly what "testing" means, and what "unstable" means. |
6 |
> Just because I ask a relatively simple question in this group does |
7 |
> not mean that I am "not prepared to deal with the occasional |
8 |
> problem". Were that the case, I would not be working with computers |
9 |
> at all, since all operating systems and distributions have an |
10 |
> "occasional problem" even in their "stable" branches. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Chris |
13 |
|
14 |
If I may speak for Neil, he provides a lot of very useful information |
15 |
to the list and is a very courteous poster as well. In my mind, that |
16 |
little lemming that somehow appears along with his emails is |
17 |
the sign of a good addition to the thread. I'm sure he didn't |
18 |
mean to insult you. I hope that you agree that even though you started |
19 |
the thread, the information he gave could be useful to others reading |
20 |
it. I thought it was an informative and well-written post myself, not |
21 |
that yours aren't, but don't be too defensive. We're all here to learn |
22 |
(and perhaps to teach, occasionally at least ;) ) |
23 |
|
24 |
to answer your original question succinctly: |
25 |
|
26 |
> Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your |
27 |
> system if you choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf |
28 |
> file? |
29 |
|
30 |
no, no one can tell until they are tested, and then they will be marked |
31 |
stable. |
32 |
|
33 |
If I may take a moment to make a few (friendly and respectful!) |
34 |
criticisms of your post, that may have given people the wrong |
35 |
impression, I think there are probably two things that may have done |
36 |
so: firstly, your subject line was 'Can anyone help me?' Sure, you're |
37 |
asking for help, but a more relevant subject line would have nicely |
38 |
synopsized your post. Most people that start a thread here _are_ |
39 |
looking for help, after all. Secondly, I think this: |
40 |
|
41 |
>I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from |
42 |
>backup, or to try re-installing again. I just want to know which |
43 |
>packages are so unstable that I should mask them. |
44 |
|
45 |
definitely made my blood boil a little. It sounds as if, with your gawk case |
46 |
here, a careful analysis of the log files could have perhaps provided |
47 |
you with a few fundamentals from /usr/lib that were missing and only |
48 |
needed to be copied over to / before /usr or /usr/lib was mounted from |
49 |
it's seperate filesystem. (I am just guessing that's how Neil solved |
50 |
this particular problem, although I wouldn't know.) Saying that the |
51 |
only way to fix a particular problem is by replacing the software with |
52 |
a working version is very rarely the case. |
53 |
|
54 |
I hope you can understand how that could give us a little bit of a bad |
55 |
first impression here on the lists, because it consists of a lot of |
56 |
serious gentooers that all seem to share a dislike of reinstalls and |
57 |
backup restorations rather than responding to particular error messages |
58 |
and resolving their problems that way. Perhaps it's just the gentoo |
59 |
way - reinstalling seems to be very popular in ubuntu. |
60 |
|
61 |
Anyhow, my advice to you is to do what many, including myself do - save |
62 |
yourself the headache of running ~amd64, and only use package.keywords |
63 |
to unmask packages as necessary. |
64 |
|
65 |
Good luck, and may you withhold judgment of me as I have of you, |
66 |
|
67 |
Dan Farrell |
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |