> > Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine > with it. > > We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user. > One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and > cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might emerge 5.16.3 only to hit a > module later that insists on 5.12.4, thus requiring downgrading. There are > other examples where dependencies track stable but not unstable. This is in > addition to the usual breakage on the bleeding edge.
There is a chance to be a bit off-topic here but I don't consider this being a problem for two reasons. First, mips profiles were marked 'experimental' so we missed a lot of repoman functionality :) Moreover, the problem you mentioned is a packaging issue which needs to be fixed. Having more people testing this as part of their regular testing can only improve the user experience in the end. For such arches, my personal opinion is that most people have been running ~arch all along because stable was lagging so far behind. >> > Or no serious negative feedback. I don't think you will. I can support > this. Thank you! -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
