-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/22/2013 07:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
>>> would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
>>> might still keep them.
>>
>> What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system
>> provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will
>> start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable
>> tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch.
> 
> Do we actually have examples of this happening?  I've never had
> problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords.  Granted, I'm not
> running ~arch on most libs.
> 
> I've seen lots of talk about stable being less reliable than ~arch,
> and ~arch applications on a stable core being unreliable, but I've
> never actually seen any real evidence that either is true.  Granted,
> I'm not necessarily expecting a scientific study, but I haven't even
> heard anecdotes.  I can't offer much personally - I only really use
> stable to any extent and I find it works just fine other than the
> occasional need to unmask something.
> 
I unmask/keyword things as needed for Pentoo and I can't say I've ever
noticed a lack of stability due to it.  I have a (mostly) stable base of
@system packages and key things like DE's most of the time, but I also
randomly mix in an ~arch package or two when I need to.  Almost all of
the security tools I put on Pentoo are ~arch, and many of them pull in
some random ~arch libs, etc.  I can't say I've never had an issue but as
long as we all keep the deps are correct as possible it really isn't an
issue.

Just my $0.02

- -ZC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=5WWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to