Apparently, though unproven, at 21:13 on Monday 13 September 2010, J. Roeleveld did opine thusly:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > >> [...] > > > > > > I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on > > > unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I > > > really need that version. > > > > Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or > > full testing (aka "unstable"). Mixing usually makes things worse. I > > used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that > > this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch > > packages breaking with arch ones. > > This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to > unmask these. > I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable. > > What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is: > =games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64 > =games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64 > =app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64 > =app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64 > > These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I > wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that > one has become stable since. > > I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable". File a stabilization request at bugs.gentoo.org If it's sufficiently tested, and there are no outstanding big bugs on the package, and if the arch maintainers agree, the devs will move the package to stable. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
