| 1 |
James Homuth wrote: |
| 2 |
> There are several packages that were thrown around on the list, or versions |
| 3 |
> of packages, that I've come across that I figure I might want to take an |
| 4 |
> active interest in. However, to avoid sending my boxes into a tailspin, I'm |
| 5 |
> staying away from installing the still in development versions. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
in development according to whom? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> What I'd |
| 10 |
> like to know though is if there's some means of knowing if/when, as an |
| 11 |
> example, a newer version of Portage is supposed to be considered stable. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So long as you have ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86 (or any arch, but not ~arch) |
| 14 |
then it's gentoo stable. Generally this means no (or insignificant) |
| 15 |
bugs for about 30 days, and no unstable / masked deps. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Note this has nothing to do with upstream stable, which is defined by |
| 18 |
upstream. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Given the keywords above, if you can install it, it's considered stable! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> If |
| 23 |
> not then I can always keep an eye on the relevant RSS feeds, but it was |
| 24 |
> mostly just curiosity on my part. Thanks either way. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
worthwhile for getting juicy info like --keep-going but otherwise not |
| 27 |
really necessary. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Alea iacta est. |
| 33 |
[The die is cast] |
| 34 |
-- Gaius Julius Caesar |
Archives