| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> 100202 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long. |
| 7 |
>>> Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system |
| 8 |
>>> with legions of other unstable $STUFF |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> So why has it continued to be marked 'unstable' for so long ? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I have no idea. You should ask Zac. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There's an entry in packages.mask about wanting user test feedback, that |
| 16 |
> doesn't say much. It especially says nothing about the quality of the stable |
| 17 |
> vs unstable code bases |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I read on -dev that they want the older version tested more. I'm not |
| 22 |
sure why since it seems most people have just unmasked the newer version |
| 23 |
and moved on. It's not like the older version is better or anything. ;-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better. |
| 26 |
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their system, |
| 27 |
that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see what |
| 28 |
happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version you |
| 29 |
have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out of |
| 30 |
portage tho. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Dale |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
:-) :-) |
Archives