public inbox for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-amd64]  Re: nvidia only nvidia logo [SOLVED]
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:00:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2005.10.15.01.00.27.45866@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.63.0510141023280.8162@melchior.nuitari.net

Nuitari posted <Pine.LNX.4.63.0510141023280.8162@melchior.nuitari.net>,
excerpted below,  on Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:24:11 -0400:

>> Are u sure you want your whole system built out of the testing (~amd64) 
>> "release" of gentoo?
> 
> My laptop runs with ~amd64 and it's the amd64 system I had the least 
> problems with...

Likewise here, with my dual Opteron workstation.

While I'm not going to say any particular Gentoo user should be running
stable or ~arch (testing), amd64 is a bit different than x86 regarding
stable.  Altho the degree to which this is still true is fading, it's
still true to some extent that the folks likely to be running amd64 in the
first place are more likely to be leading-edge type folks.  Thus, it's
likely that a higher proportion of amd64 users use ~arch than x86 users,
which corresponds to a more reliable ~amd64 than ~x86, because it has been
better tested as there are more folks running it.  (One way to ensure this
even further would be to delay upgrades on critical packages by 3-4 days
after they first appear in the upgrade list, watching to see if there's a
bunch of problem reports on them.  Such packages would certainly include
gcc/glibc/binutils/portage/baselayout/xorg, and your X environment of
choice, kde/gnome/whatever.)

Correspondingly, stable amd64 users /may/ at times have /more/ troubles
than ~amd64, because stable will by definition mean older versions, and
with fewer folks running it, there might be occasional compatibility
problems between older packages and something freshly marked stable --
which passed the tests to stable because everyone running it was running
newer ~arch versions of whatever it had problems with.

That said, ~arch /will/ at times have issues, particularly if you upgrade
as soon as something gets marked ~amd64.  As I mentioned, one way to avoid
this would be waiting a couple days after a portage says a package is
available, to upgrade to it, for packages which are either generally
critical, or critical to you.

Here, as mentioned, I run a ~amd64 system.  I even unmask and merge
masked-for-testing packages on occasion.  Right now, for instance, I'm
running gcc-4.0.1 as my main compiler, using eselect compiler to switch
back to gcc-3.4.4 for stuff (like xorg) that doesn't yet compile with
gcc-4.x.  As part of that process, I also had to unmask newer versions of
binutils with fixes for gcc4, and I'm running a still masked glibc with
gcc4 fixes as well.  I haven't yet tried the kde-3.5 alpha packages, but I
did run the kde-3.4 betas, which as betas were never unmasked, and will
probably do the same with kde-3.5 at some point.  I tried the still masked
modular-xorg stuff, but couldn't get it to run, so dropped back to the
last monolithic xorg-x11 snapshot build, now xorg-x11-6.8.99.15-r4, as of
last portage tree update a few days ago (I'll do another tonight, and may
try kde-3.5 after that).  I often run portage and baselayout snapshots
before they are keyworded ~amd64 as well, altho the versions I'm running
now (portage-2.0.53_rc5 and baselayout-1.12.0-pre9-r1), while rc/pre and
therefore unlikely to ever go stable, are ~amd64 keyworded and not masked.

As I said, far be it from me to tell someone they should run
unstable/testing/~arch, but for those willing to work around the
occasional issue, ~amd64 is probably safer than ~x86 would be, and for
specific packages at specific times, has proven safer even than stable
amd64.  Again, for those wanting to try it but still a bit cautious,
consider running ~amd64, but waiting a couple days after critical packages
show up on the upgrade list, before trying them, to see if anybody "stupid
enough to try them first" <g> runs into issues.  (I can say that since I'm
"that stupid"!  <g>)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list



      reply	other threads:[~2005-10-15  1:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-12 20:09 [gentoo-amd64] nvidia only nvidia logo bruce harding
2005-10-12 20:54 ` Simon Strandman
2005-10-13  1:00   ` bruce harding
2005-10-12 21:19 ` Hemmann, Volker Armin
2005-10-12 21:48   ` Jamie Dobbs
2005-10-13  0:50     ` faatihah
2005-10-13  1:01     ` bruce harding
2005-10-13  1:56     ` [gentoo-amd64] nvidia only nvidia logo [SOLVED] bruce harding
2005-10-14 12:24       ` Andreas Vinsander
2005-10-14 14:24         ` Nuitari
2005-10-15  1:00           ` Duncan [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=pan.2005.10.15.01.00.27.45866@cox.net \
    --to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
    --cc=gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox