On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:31:44 -0500 "Albert W. Hopkins" <mar...@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That > > means > > not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. > > > > ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case > > there > > are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works > > because we > > didn't even try it once". > > You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using > Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even > compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even > attempt to compile it. This is par for the course. > > And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as > "probably won't work" and you're expecting them to test *that* given > that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! > > Good luck with that. My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever, if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end, usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
