| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:06:13 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Running testing, most packages wb recompiled within a month anyway. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I have a lot of "testing" packages, which run without problems. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's different to running a completely testing system, the vast |
| 8 |
majority of your packages are still stable and thus, by definition, won't |
| 9 |
change very often. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> A lot of outstanding bugs seem to affect only a few special users. |
| 12 |
> Yet again, Gentoo should make a 4th category by making "stable" = |
| 13 |
> "server" & splitting "testing" into "newly unmasked" & "desktop-ready": |
| 14 |
> many "testing" packages today are in fact desktop-ready, |
| 15 |
> ie the remaining bugs will be rare & easy to recover from. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Remember that the distinction is not about bugs in the software but in |
| 18 |
the ebuilds. I think the current system is fine with a choice of a low |
| 19 |
maintenance system where working packages change rarely and one where you |
| 20 |
have access to closer to the bleeding edge. If you want true bleeding |
| 21 |
edge, you can always add packages to /etc/portage/package.mask. The |
| 22 |
control /etc/portage gives you makes multiple levels of ARCH |
| 23 |
unnecessary. You have already created your own set of "desktop-ready" |
| 24 |
packages by customising package.keywords. Someone else may have |
| 25 |
different requirements, let each user choose for themself. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > I wanted to see if the 'kdehiddenvisibility' flag made any difference |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> What was your experience ? Do you recommend others (me) to use it ? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I can't say I noticed a difference, but it mainly affects KDE startup |
| 32 |
time and that's something I rarely do, and don't hang around to watch. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
No program done by a hacker will work unless he is on the system. |
Archives