| 1 |
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:31:44 -0500 |
| 2 |
"Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That |
| 6 |
> > means |
| 7 |
> > not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case |
| 10 |
> > there |
| 11 |
> > are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works |
| 12 |
> > because we |
| 13 |
> > didn't even try it once". |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using |
| 16 |
> Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even |
| 17 |
> compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even |
| 18 |
> attempt to compile it. This is par for the course. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as |
| 21 |
> "probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given |
| 22 |
> that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Good luck with that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using |
| 27 |
Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever, |
| 28 |
if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end, |
| 32 |
usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic |
| 33 |
packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 38 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives