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 1RV4tg-0007Gu-7m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:21:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF38621C0F6; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C4521C04B for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3D91B4004 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:19:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.352 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.201] autolearn=ham Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a5_WRwCVpLFA for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F291B400D for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RV4rN-0006eJ-Qn for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:17 +0100 Received: from dsl.comtrol.com ([64.122.56.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:17 +0100 Received: from grant.b.edwards by dsl.comtrol.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:17 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6? Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4ED28F6A.7090606@alyf.net> <1322483386.66469.4.camel@stretch> <1322497904.6295.6.camel@stretch> <20111128184152.03279681@rohan.example.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: 482362ad-80c4-4aea-9947-010aaf532447 X-Archives-Hash: c164218818c897c94ff1cb4603bc8200 On 2011-11-28, Alan McKinnon wrote: > "Albert W. Hopkins" 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. I don't think that's fair. Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried to build 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. I've been running Gentoo for 5-6 years on multiple machines, and there have been a couple occasions when a testing version of something didn't build because it wasn't compatible with the testing version of something else with a particular set of USE flags. Generally I would just switch back to stable for the packages involved, since whatever feature/fix that had prompted the switch to testing had long since made it into the stable version. Other times, just waiting a day or two and trying again would fix the problem. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It's a hole all the at way to downtown Burbank! gmail.com