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

Reply via email to