On Wednesday 27 September 2006 12:35, Daniel Iliev wrote: ...snip > BTW, Everyone, > I'm observing something very interesting: > I was told not to go gentoo-amd64 for it was not stable. I was told not > to migrate because there were still many important programs pending to > be ported. I read almost everywhere about headaches and breakages. > Reading your replies in this thread also suggests strictly following the > official way otherwise - problems. > It is very strange - I was ready to meet tons of major problems but I > haven't met a single one yet. It is my opinion that the possibility of > problems on gentoo-amd64 is highly overrated. I installed it with no > problems, I obviously have tweaked it a lot beyond normal and what I see > is a perfectly working system. It appears that gentoo-amd64 team along > with the GNU, linux-kernel and all other nice guys who provide free/open > source software have done a great work and we owe them BIG THANKS. I > just wonder how come that so many people talk about some non-existing > problems. > How come that still in my first try I have bootstrapped from stage3, > made "emerge -e system", installed xfce4, gnome, firefox, thunderbird, > and a bunch of other packages along with all their dependencies, then > made "emerge -e world" and after all this compiling I had to do "emerge > --resume" only once when some package wanted mysql build with -fpic > flag. I'm I lucky or what? ;-) > > > -- > Best regards, > Daniel Somebody misinformed you. Gentoo-amd64 rulez, the rest drule! ;-) I run the unstable (~amd64) branch, and even that is rock solid. Sure it breaks now and then, but that's why they call it unstable. Your success with your first build is a testament to the great community we have here. Welcome aboard!
glide -- Mike Bonar -- [email protected] mailing list
