| Re: [proaudio] arch in make.conf |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] arch in make.conf
- From: "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:59:55 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=+qLC3uObNppXgtt/lBECLggN80vFjpzjiuohEAnVHEs=; b=rO7NDXcCBBnITygzMAvAJqZmkBp+4ndyqIt+xftphHJWiFwbwWNrge34Q0uJswbD+tlYrELnzzmw//cRbNOIxTpORfuqAzHMeDP3yhIuDSwizENU6LxBsbce2wmHuFWwlqM1fCvOKmoOfjJ0gqW1mp4UMs8+RMQCOfUEIPjXh1w=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=umWa+PNgeiVeCxgkvPxc2oCoc7DLAG9+mD0a89MJ307HNp+Li/ErJ9X+t8oZNnUxSp6FboSRhOm5LbkFOBfgwLp8pJYNcJ3bbbhe7jHygDS5/4PD9D8UK65eHZBZW4bjPMC23eyv6DDDQacQ1RyRJE6CcWEl2Onr8dnC9bsDUl0=
On 10/15/07, rob <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Personally I had bad luck with ~x86 when I tried it but that was a
> > long time ago. Seems like there is good reason in most case why a
> > package is marked ~x86. Bugs, problems with ebuilds, pointers to new
> > libraries, etc. I decided that stable was good for me.
> >
> That was my experience too.
>
> One night (whilst rather tired) I accepted an emerge world which wrecked
> the system. Several critical system binaries were 'upgraded' making it
> impossible to go back or forward.
>
> Luckily I had backups - I suggest you do too...
>
> cheers
> R
Yeah, that's an interesting point. Maybe part of the trick would be to
use ~x86 in make.conf but then set every package in emerge -ep system
to be non-~x86? That's 134 packages on my system. Not great, but far
less work than managing the 436 entries Dominique is talking about,
and for the most part those packages don't change names much so once
it's set up it would be pretty much done.
I see NO reason to be using ~x86 systems files, or certainly not
indiscriminately.
- Mark