On Sunday 05 Jun 2011 13:28:40 Indi wrote: > On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 12:41:42PM +0100, Mick wrote: > > On Sunday 05 Jun 2011 12:17:08 Indi wrote: > > > If I were driven strictly by aesthetic concerns qt and kde4 > > > might be my choices, as they can be extremely pleasant to look > > > at. Heh, reminds me of my ex -- he was very pleasant to look at > > > (and a huge amount of constant maintenance work) as well. ;) > > > > I think that your problem is that you are running ~arch and this comes > > with frequent updates. These days I'm running stable and my qt, kde or > > OOo updates are quite infrequent (like twice a year or may be less). > > Twice a year or less, *really*?
OK, I lied:
# genlop kmail
* kde-base/kmail
Sat Dec 18 16:46:54 2010 >>> kde-base/kmail-4.4.7
Fri Jan 14 11:41:39 2011 >>> kde-base/kmail-4.4.8
Sat Jan 29 10:51:11 2011 >>> kde-base/kmail-4.4.9
Wed May 11 16:02:50 2011 >>> kde-base/kmail-4.4.11.1
although you could argue from Jan 11 to May 11 is close to six months. The
more mature kde4 becomes the fewer updates we should see.
Ah! Hold on:
# genlop konqueror
* kde-base/konqueror
Sat Dec 18 16:22:22 2010 >>> kde-base/konqueror-4.4.5
Wed May 11 17:02:05 2011 >>> kde-base/konqueror-4.6.2
That's more like it! :)
> Had no idea the difference between stable and testing was that huge...
> Of course the reason I'm running testing is that typically, when I
> install there are inevitably two or three things I can't live without
> that don't work in stable so I start with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS fiddling,
> and eventually that snowballs into a level of complexity which
> frustrates me and then I just end up putting "~x86" in make.conf.
Most people do the same (unmasking stuff) typically to sort out driver
problems, but not necessarily go the full ~arch way.
I unmask particular packages when I need to and then leave them well alone
until portage catches up with those versions.
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
