| 1 |
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
> 100202 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long. |
| 4 |
> > Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system |
| 5 |
> > with legions of other unstable $STUFF |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So why has it continued to be marked 'unstable' for so long ? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I have no idea. You should ask Zac. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
There's an entry in packages.mask about wanting user test feedback, that |
| 12 |
doesn't say much. It especially says nothing about the quality of the stable |
| 13 |
vs unstable code bases |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> My long-standing policy ( > 6 yr ) has been to stick to 'stable' |
| 16 |
> for all system pkgs, but use 'unstable' for well-supported apps (eg KDE): |
| 17 |
> I haven't run into a serious problem in all that time. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I can't think of an app that is better supported in Gentoo than portage. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives