| 1 |
Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Tanstaafl<tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 2010-04-12 11:05 AM, Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> I use the --keep-going always, it was a great addition and especially |
| 7 |
>>> helpful when there is a bad package that won't compile for a week or |
| 8 |
>>> two, it makes it easier to just ignore it. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> Hopefully no one will mind a slight OT question, but still related... |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Is the testing version of portage 2.2 stable enough for production |
| 13 |
>> machines? There are a number of new features I'd like to take advantage |
| 14 |
>> of, but have always hesitated to and any non-stable system packages. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> I've been using portage unmasked for a very long time and don't |
| 17 |
> remember having any portage-related problems. I'm sure there must be |
| 18 |
> some (or else why is it still RC?) but for me the new features are |
| 19 |
> worth the potential risk of using less-tested code. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
+1 I been using the latest portage for a long time too. I don't recall |
| 24 |
any problems with it and the new features sure do help. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If you keyword portage, you need to do the same for its friends. Mainly |
| 27 |
gentoolkit and eix. They seem to go together better. If you run one |
| 28 |
without the other, it can do some weird things. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dale |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-) :-) |
Archives