| 1 |
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:35:44PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote |
| 2 |
> lordsauronthegreat@×××××.com wrote: |
| 3 |
> >On Thursday 04 May 2006 05:27 pm, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> Gentoo ~x86 (or ~whatever) is roughly equivalant to a mix of Debian |
| 6 |
> >>"Testing" and "Unstable". A package may be ~ simply because it hasn't |
| 7 |
> >>been tested enough yet to certify as stable. Or it may be horribly |
| 8 |
> >>broken. Or somewhere in between. If you were comfortable running |
| 9 |
> >>Debian unstable, you'll be comfortable running Gentoo ~x86. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> Actually, this isn't quite true. The difference between arch and ~arch |
| 12 |
> is strictly a Gentoo difference - packages aren't shifted from |
| 13 |
> package.mask to ~arch until they're considered stable by upstream. |
| 14 |
> ~arch is the Gentoo testing branch: where the ebuild is refined and |
| 15 |
> where the code is patched if it breaks due to crazy C(XX)FLAGS, USE, etc. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Packages where the *code* (as opposed to the *ebuild*) is still |
| 18 |
> considered unstable and which may actually break things badly are left |
| 19 |
> in package.mask. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
There isn't a 100% exact mapping like.. |
| 22 |
Gentoo-~arch => Debian-Testing |
| 23 |
Gentoo-masked => Debian-Unstable |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's a mixture. Even "an ebuild-related problem" can cause brokeness. |
| 26 |
"The consequences" are... |
| 27 |
1) More liklihood of strange bugs/breakage |
| 28 |
2) You will *NOT* get bug-support here or in bugzilla.gentoo.org for |
| 29 |
packages marked as ~arch |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1 |
| 33 |
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives