On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber <x...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
>> And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
>> granularity moot.
>>
>> It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
>> or anything.
>>
>> Please stop dooming this possibility. Mixing together software versions
>> isn't that much of a magic as you make of it.
>
> I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not encourage
> this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
Actually every other post is about keywording special versions or
running --autounmask-write. I'm saying that "we do not encourage this"
might not be the reality on forums/blogs/channels.
> When did I say the opposite? However they should not expect much
> support if they use a mixed system and they run into
> troubles. Someone who does that, should know what he is doing and be
> prepared to run into problems.
> And I will stop here because this discussion is off-topic.
>
>>
>>> It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell
>>> them that for everything else, please use ~arch.
>>
>> (I'm not saying that it doesn't hurt in some places, but it's
>> manageable, as is living on arches with stable core and very few stable
>> leave packages, like I've been doing on sparc, ppc and arm.)
>>
> This is yet to be decided.
This is the established road that leads to user supplied KEYWORDREQ and
STABLEREQ bugs. And reality for sparc/ppc/arm, which lacks stable
keywords on lots of packages.
Imho, x86 should be added to the list too.
<troll>Which environmental responsible persons runs these CPUs these
days.</troll>
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber <x...@gentoo.org>
