On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100 Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed > systems are totally > unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when > a mixed system is detected. > > It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such > configurations is definitely not desirable. > > It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell > them that for everything else, please use ~arch. Really? So you’re telling me that if I want Drupal on my Web server, which if it breaks then takes a few minutes to revert to the previous version and has virtually zero chance of taking anything else down with it, then it’s “definitely not desirable…to encourage” me to use mixed keywords—instead I should be using ~arch versions of, say, glibc, iproute2, openssh, openrc, and the kernel, every single one of which, should it break, would be fixable only with a bus ride across the city, access to a locked room, wiring up a keyboard and monitor, and possibly booting from a live disk? There’s breakage of one package, and then there’s breakage of the *system*. Running mixed versions may increase the chance of breakage of the particular package that’s ~arch as compared to running a full ~arch system, but as long as that package isn’t part of or needed by the system boot process, I can’t see how mixed versions could do anything but decrease the chance of breakage of the system as a whole. Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
