| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> First thing: I understand why you want to go testing -> stable, but at |
| 3 |
> least leave portage unstable. A *lot* of ancient stuff has been fixed in |
| 4 |
> ~arch, it's perfectly safe and robust, and most especially all that |
| 5 |
> stupid "no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot" |
| 6 |
> has gone away, replaced with something that a) works and b) makes sense |
| 7 |
> and c) does not reduce the poor sysadmin (i.e you) to tears |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Stable is only three months older than ~arch, though it may very well |
| 10 |
be much better (can't say I've used the ~arch version). Portage has |
| 11 |
fortunately been keeping up much better on stable of late. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If there are packages that simply aren't acceptable in their stable |
| 14 |
versions, I'd call that a bug... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Rich |
Archives