| 1 |
On 16/01/2014 17:45, Gevisz wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Incidentally, there's nothing bad about installing that package's 9999 |
| 3 |
>> > version. It's masked because it's in the source repo (all |
| 4 |
>> > cvs/svn/git/etc sources are always masked so they don't get installed |
| 5 |
>> > accidentally). But keeping them current is a pain. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Thank you for information, but so far I am trying to keep my system as |
| 8 |
> close to the main portage tree as possible and really afraid of any |
| 9 |
> masked packaged and even the packages from other overlays. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're being overly cautious to your own detriment. Handbrake is almost |
| 13 |
permanently keyworded, I can't recall a time when a version was ever |
| 14 |
marked stable. This is unrelated to code quality, it's likely to be |
| 15 |
simply manpower (a huge thread is happening right now on -dev on this |
| 16 |
very subject). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Handbrake works and works well. You get the same as what you'd get if |
| 19 |
you installed it direct from the project site (or if you ran it on |
| 20 |
MacOS). It's an app, nothing consumes it so it either works or it doesn't. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If we were discussing say dbus or apache&php putting latest unstable |
| 23 |
package on an otherwise stable system you would indeed have a very valid |
| 24 |
point. But this is not the case here. If ~arch handbrake needs to update |
| 25 |
some other lib to ~arch, it won't work emerge and you'll get a very |
| 26 |
verbose message saying why. Then you can make an informed decision. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 30 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives