On Tuesday 29 Nov 2011 14:26:17 Dale wrote: > Michael Mol wrote: > > on my partial ~amd64 system, I have googletalk-plugin installed, and > > it serves me well. On my new box (also partial ~amd64, but far more in > > the stable realm than unstable realm), I tried to emerge > > googletalk-plugin, and it's masked. It's also a '9999' version > > package. I vaguely recall that '9999' packages are special somehow. > > How is that? > > I think those are called the live builds. Basically, they are not > tested much and are really close to falling off the bleeding edge. I > rarely mess with those. There is a google-talkplugin-2.5.6.0 that is > not live but keyworded. If it was me, I would at least try that version > first. It is likely tested a bit more, not going to change so often and > be stable as it gets in the unstable branch of the tree. If that fails, > go back to the older version. If neither works, then I would try to > 9999 build. I'd also cross my fingers for good measure.
9999 builds is the latest potentially unstable and incomplete code that the devs just churned out and uploaded to cvs. 10 minutes later may be another revision and so on. Every time you rebuild you'll be downloading the latest attempt of their coding. What is annoying is that you had it working just right and suddenly all the 9999 builds have come off the boil and break in a bad way. This can be particularly burdensome or even debilitating for a prolonged period, like I experienced with some wireless drivers in the past. Of course, not all 9999 packages are that 'unstable'. I've been running e17 for some time now and only every once in a while I happen to come across a bug or build problem. Even so, I tend not to update 9999 packages often, once I get a well behaving revision. YMMV -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
