Uwe Thiem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on  Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:17:30 +0100:

> On 21 July 2006 04:26, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> Duncan wrote:
>> > I don't see it as... annoying; I see it as... challenging! =8^)
>> >
>> > Seriously, computing is my hobby, and as such, it needs to remain a bit
>> > challenging from time to time, or it would cease to be of interest.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, are there three "versions" -- stable, testing and
>> unstable -- or just two -- stable and unstable? 
> 
> Three.
> 
>> And if one uses "~x86", 
>> is that "testing" or "unstable"? I just think of it as "~x86".
> 
> That's testing.

Depends how you look at it.  There's officially two levels, stable aka
arch(-stable) and ~arch, called variously unstable or testing, which
correspond to Debian levels, I tend to use ~arch, as that has a precise
Gentoo meaning.

By the Gentoo definition, with certain exceptions, only candidates for
arch-stable can go in ~arch. ~arch means the package upstream is stable,
but the Gentoo packaging, that is, the ebuild script and any necessary
Gentoo specific patches may not be stable.  If it's not considered a
stable release upstream, it's generally not a candidate for ~arch, tho it
may be in the tree as -* or unkeyworded, for those who want to play around
with it without the usual Gentoo safety net even of ~arch.

The biggest exceptions to the above policy are Gentoo core packages such as
portage and baselayout where Gentoo /is/ "upstream.  Both these packages
routinely have -pre and -rc builds in ~arch that are never intended to
reach arch-stable.

The third level, as already mentioned, is hard-masked.  If one chooses to
play with their package.unmask and package.keywords such that they can
merge these, it's without the usual Gentoo safety net.  Sometimes, as with
the gcc-4.0 and early 4.1 packages, even unmasking isn't enough, one has
to set something like I_WANT_A_BROKEN_SYSTEM=1 to get them to merge.  Even
there, however, Gentoo makes things easier to manage due to gcc-config
(now eselect compiler) and a slotted gcc, so it wasn't too hard to run a
default gcc-4.0 compiled system and eselect compiler set <3.4> for
packages that weren't yet fixed for gcc4.



-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
[email protected] mailing list

Reply via email to