From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MsyX0-0000oV-NT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:43:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD1A0E0788; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx01.admin-box.com (mx01.admin-box.com [78.47.249.108]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05626E0788 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx01.admin-box.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401202024B41 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:43:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx01.admin-box.com Received: from mx01.admin-box.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx01.admin-box.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4T+oONdpZRZ for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:43:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.137] (e178042086.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.42.86]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@troeder.de) by mx01.admin-box.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89DCF2024760 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:43:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gnome 2.26 stable? From: Daniel Troeder To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <4AC283C0.5020704@xunil.at> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:43:36 +0200 Message-Id: <1254314616.2793.8.camel@maya.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 793ddb75-d160-450d-84dc-25a392c97bbc X-Archives-Hash: c2d6b22f0736c4eaaa069c4e6da6f200 On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 18:19 -0700, walt wrote: > I run gnome on my ~amd64 machine and have had no problems at all (so far). > IMHO it's safe to run gnome on an ~amd64 machine, but I've not used the > unstable gnome desktop on a stable amd64 machine. Just from past experience > I might expect problems from mixing stable/unstable in that manner. But > I can offer no evidence either way. I'm running testing GNOME on a "stable" system, with tesing audio/video/gfx/xorg stuff. Everything I consider "moving fast" is testing, the rest of the system is stable. Works good for me. Just that I have to unmask more and more base packages too, because they are a dependency of other unmasked packages... $ wc -l /etc/portage/package.* 593 /etc/portage/package.keywords 2 /etc/portage/package.mask 32 /etc/portage/package.unmask 23 /etc/portage/package.use 650 total (cleaned number after checking for comments with $ egrep '^#' /etc/portage/package.* ) $ eix -I --only-names | wc -l 1194 Well... I wouldn't call a system with 50% testing packages officially "stable" - though it is. :D Bye, Daniel