Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@×××××.com> wrote:
> On 08/23/2014 11:22 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
>>>> spinning, like to reduce it
>>>>
>>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
>>>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
>>>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
>>>> use udisks anymore
>>>>
>>>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
>>>> required
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> samuli
>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>
>>> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
>>> unstable packages as much as possible.
>>>
>>> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
>>> braking anything unnecessarily?
>>
>> I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong
>> with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly.
>>
>> What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other
>> basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc
>> with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain
>> to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever
>> tested that combination).
>>
>> What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package
>> (xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly
>> unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's
>> purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and
>> the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed.
>>
>> So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with
>> everything else you have.
>>
>> The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can
>> possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big
>> picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done
>> above.
>>
>>
>>
> I'll give that whirl. Thanks.
>


I updated the xfce4-power-manger as suggested:
equery -q l '*power-manager*'
xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1

So far, I have not experienced anything abnormal.

Thanks for the list's help.