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. Rich
