| 1 |
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:36:37 +0200, Damian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The reason for doing so is that what is considered as unstable as been |
| 4 |
> regarded as stable releases for the developers, and the truth is that |
| 5 |
> the problems I got for using outdated software were more that the ones I |
| 6 |
> had for using unstable versions. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's because what you describe as unstable has nothing to do with |
| 9 |
stability of the software. ~arch is testing ebuilds, they are unstable in |
| 10 |
that they change more often, but as you say, the upstream software is |
| 11 |
considered fit for use. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Thus, I'm thinking about switching all of my system to the unstable |
| 14 |
> branch. But first I want to be sure that this is reasonable given the |
| 15 |
> problems I described before. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Can you provide me some useful advice according to your experience? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Switching to testing is as easy as changing ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in make.conf |
| 20 |
and doing emerge -uaDN @world. Switching back is less easy, but if this |
| 21 |
is what you want to do, then go for it. I have run testing for years, |
| 22 |
with far less problems than some people running mixed arch systems. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
CPU: (n.) acronym for Central Purging Unit. A device which discards or |
| 29 |
distorts data sent to it, sometimes returning more data and sometimes |
| 30 |
merely over-heating. |
Archives