On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:56:10 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > A mixed system is not stable.
>
> Huh? You mean to say that a mixed system is likely to have hiccups?
I mean it is not "stable" as in not x86, amd64, ppc etc.
If a system has ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" in make.conf and a whole bunch o
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:30 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> > If everyone ran either full stable or full testing, how are
> > problems that occur when one the testing packages makes it to
> > stable going to be detected? By the ones running stable. :(
> > So, mixed syst
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
A mixed system is not stable. I doubt many people run all stable
save for
one package, not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you
have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of
switching to a
full testing system,
Mmm, perhaps I'll try running a pure ~x86 after all.Finally am getting back up again...Regards,Martin S
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:16:21 -0400, Robin wrote:
> > But when you
> > have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching
> > to a full testing system, IMO.
> That is a pretty bold statement. A lot of packages are masked just
> because they are "untested" on a particular archite
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> But when you
> have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a
> full testing system, IMO.
>
That is a pretty bold statement. A lot of packages are masked just
because they are "untested" on a particular architecture, and
sometimes you need tha
On 20 December 2005 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thanks for the good comments as usual Richard. But I can't resist this:
> > I guess this depends on your reasons for going ~x86. If it is to
> > avoid compiling, well, that is a bad reason,
>
> I'
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:30 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > Most of the reported problems with
> > testing packages seem to be from people running mixed
> > stable/testing systems.
>
> Just a hunch, or do you keep numbers?
An impression, much more than a hunch,m but n
Richard Fish wrote:
On 12/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf
and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't
have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked.
I doubt that above
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Most of the reported problems with
> testing packages seem to be from people running mixed
> stable/testing systems.
Just a hunch, or do you keep numbers?
> If everyone ran stable, how stable would it be with no testing?
If everyone ran either full stable or full testing,
Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks for the good comments as usual Richard. But I can't resist this:
> I guess this depends on your reasons for going ~x86. If it is to
> avoid compiling, well, that is a bad reason,
I'd rather set my hair on fire than compile kde, and I'm bald :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:56:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf
> and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't
> have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked.
> I doubt that above would be seen
Dirk Heinrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not? I do run ~x86 on several machines now for over a year, with only
> minor problems. Of course, you'll run into bugs (mostly compilation
> problems) from time to time, but that doesn't matter so much (at least for
> me). I usually file a bug (
On 12/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf
> and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't
> have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked.
> I doubt that above would be seen as v
On (20/12/05 16:15), Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 15:56 schrieb ext
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf
> > and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't
> > have to fiddle around with a mi
If only I know where I went wrong ;-)I upgraded to KDE 3.5 beta 1 at one time, later (after a emerge -u world/system or three) I upgraded to KDE 3.5 proper.After this I noticed that "nothing" "worked".
No sound, no USB, no DVD player (the one thing that *did* work on Kubuntu was sound).Various apps
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 15:56 schrieb ext
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf
> and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't
> have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked.
> I doubt that above would
Martin S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
I recently did something similar only never got past thining I might
do it I too had gotten my OS pretty unstable by not really
understanding how keywording etc worked. I still don't really fully
get it but I came back thinking I'd stay with stable
18 matches
Mail list logo
