| 1 |
On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> [...] |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on |
| 6 |
> > unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I |
| 7 |
> > really need that version. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or |
| 10 |
> full testing (aka "unstable"). Mixing usually makes things worse. I |
| 11 |
> used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that |
| 12 |
> this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch |
| 13 |
> packages breaking with arch ones. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to |
| 16 |
unmask these. |
| 17 |
I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is: |
| 20 |
=games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64 |
| 21 |
=games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64 |
| 22 |
=app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64 |
| 23 |
=app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64 |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I |
| 26 |
wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that |
| 27 |
one has become stable since. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable". |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Joost |
Archives