On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:38:34 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote:
maybe you should just run a ~arch system.
I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ?
Not in my experience. ~arch only means the
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:41:22 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote:
Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different,
and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new
feature (like packages with no stable versions)?
If you want so many up to date packages,
On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:00:05 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:41:22 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote:
Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different,
and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new
feature
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote:
maybe you should just run a ~arch system.
I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ?
Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the
software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may
Hi. I used to think it was safe to use ~arch packages (through
package.keywords) on a stable system until I saw bug #257047 - GCC 4.3
didn't have a strict enough glibc dependency. And comment #15 in that
bug report is:
[...] we don't test or support half-stable half-testing
5 matches
Mail list logo
