On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:38:34 +0100
Neil Bothwick 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 builds are
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
On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:00:05 +0100
Neil Bothwick 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 (like packages
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,
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 toolchai
5 matches
Mail list logo
