| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:37:06 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Edenfield <kutulu@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> However, this cascade of unstable dependencies is the reason |
| 5 |
> so many people discourage mixing arch and ~arch. Especially |
| 6 |
> if you're using an unstable version of something with as |
| 7 |
> many dependencies as xorg-server, by the time you're done |
| 8 |
> you'll likely have half of your system unmasked. If you're |
| 9 |
> willing to run an unstable Xorg anyway, you might want to |
| 10 |
> consider running fully ~arch. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> --Mike |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think autounmask is not exactly mixing ~arch and arch, since |
| 15 |
it only adds keywords on specified versions and the versions of |
| 16 |
the dependencies that are needed. It is not adding a general ~arch for |
| 17 |
packages. |
| 18 |
Meaning the next updates on those packages are stable again (If you are |
| 19 |
not changing keywords again of course). |
Archives