View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
arnvidr l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 629 Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: ~amd64, the age-old question |
|
|
I feel like I've seen this discussed several times before, but my searches didn't help me out, so bear with me if you're tired of it
I'm an old Gentoo user, used it a few years ago, and been a year or two on Debian. On Debian I ran unstable, and so I'm used to stuff breaking now and then. Do you think I could run ~amd64? Pros are that I'm getting more cutting edge software, and might be able to help out more with testing on the arch, cons that I'll probably annoy the hell out of my gf every time something vital breaks. I noticed a lot of the software I use isn't marked stable anyway, so I thought it also might be better to have a "complete" testing system. Waddayathink? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
yngwin Retired Dev
Joined: 19 Dec 2002 Posts: 4572 Location: Suzhou, China
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I ran ~amd64 for years. Mostly it works pretty stable, so yes, you shouldn't have too much trouble with it. _________________ "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln
Free Culture | Defective by Design | EFF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naib Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6051 Location: Removed by Neddy
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fine here _________________
Quote: | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
i92guboj Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 10315 Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You should not find any major problem. You can expect, more or less, the same kind of occasional breakage that you could find in ~x86. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tanderson Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 193
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: Re: ~amd64, the age-old question |
|
|
arnvidr wrote: | I feel like I've seen this discussed several times before, but my searches didn't help me out, so bear with me if you're tired of it
...and [I] might be able to help out more with testing on the arch, |
Not true. You can help amd64 far more if you have an 'amd64' system rather than a '~amd64' system. All arch testing must be done on a pure stable system. _________________ No Man is Just a Number!
--The Prisoner |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poly_poly-man Advocate
Joined: 06 Dec 2006 Posts: 2477 Location: RIT, NY, US
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not a single issue on ~amd64 so far.
The only reason I had problems with my ~x86 setup was when I improperly setup gcc-3 for qemu.
Even *that* worked fine here
poly-p man _________________ iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAA
avatar: new version of logo - see topic 838248. Potentially still a WiP. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ramblurr Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 18 Dec 2006 Posts: 103
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
i92guboj wrote: | You should not find any major problem. You can expect, more or less, the same kind of occasional breakage that you could find in ~x86. |
That is exactly what my experience has been. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
arnvidr l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 629 Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: Re: ~amd64, the age-old question |
|
|
gentoofan23 wrote: | arnvidr wrote: | I feel like I've seen this discussed several times before, but my searches didn't help me out, so bear with me if you're tired of it
...and [I] might be able to help out more with testing on the arch, |
Not true. You can help amd64 far more if you have an 'amd64' system rather than a '~amd64' system. All arch testing must be done on a pure stable system. |
No reporting of "this and that package should be marked stable" if I run ~amd64?
Anyway, thanks all for the responses, will change my profile when I have the chance. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
McLink Apprentice
Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 181 Location: /dev/chair
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm running a lot of packages as ~amd64 through package.keywords and I've yet to experience any really serious breakage. I wouldn't use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" though; I'd rather not take a big risk running ~arch for system packages like glibc.
For "trivial" packages (i.e. packages that won't cause a cascade of breakage), I see no problem running ~amd64, and I haven't even had too many problems with hard-masked packages (e.g. KDE 4).
So I'd say go ahead and run ~amd64; just be smart about it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phenax l33t
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 972
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Been using ~amd64 for about two years, works fine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nerdanel Apprentice
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 Posts: 161 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I'm going to update to ~amd64 based on this discussion... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
i92guboj Bodhisattva
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 10315 Location: Córdoba (Spain)
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A side note: just because no one seems to have problems with ~arch (including myself) that doesn't make ~arch any more supported or any less dangerous. As always, if you use ~arch and something breaks beyond repair, the only one to blame will be *you*. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tanderson Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 193
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: ~amd64, the age-old question |
|
|
arnvidr wrote: | gentoofan23 wrote: | arnvidr wrote: | I feel like I've seen this discussed several times before, but my searches didn't help me out, so bear with me if you're tired of it
...and [I] might be able to help out more with testing on the arch, |
Not true. You can help amd64 far more if you have an 'amd64' system rather than a '~amd64' system. All arch testing must be done on a pure stable system. |
No reporting of "this and that package should be marked stable" if I run ~amd64?
Anyway, thanks all for the responses, will change my profile when I have the chance. |
Pretty much. Well, no. You can still open a bug and say that, but somebody'll(me ) will have to redo it to see if really stable against stable libraries and such. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/at/procedures.xml That's the procedure guide for marking something stable(and opening a bug). But that's for Arch Testers. _________________ No Man is Just a Number!
--The Prisoner |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CosminG Apprentice
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 166
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a stable system with packages you want ~amd64 in the best option. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naib Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6051 Location: Removed by Neddy
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CosminG wrote: | I think a stable system with packages you want ~amd64 in the best option. |
problem is such a list is quite long when compared to say a ... ~x86 system
To prove a point I went and submitted something like 50odd stability request bugs for ~amd64, there were some that were > 200days in ~amd64 with no pending bugs
Now some of these were stability request effecting all arch and those got stabilised very quickly.... but not amd64
basically amd64 seems to be understaffed so things sit in ~amd64 longer then they should _________________
Quote: | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
steveL Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 5153 Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CosminG wrote: | I think a stable system with packages you want ~amd64 in the best option. |
Agreed
Naib wrote: | problem is such a list is quite long when compared to say a ... ~x86 system
To prove a point I went and submitted something like 50odd stability request bugs for ~amd64, there were some that were > 200days in ~amd64 with no pending bugs
Now some of these were stability request effecting all arch and those got stabilised very quickly.... but not amd64
basically amd64 seems to be understaffed so things sit in ~amd64 longer then they should |
That's just a reason to get involved and help out (and slap welp a bit ofc ;) Check this to see the dangers of unstable across the board and remember: autounmask is your friend for the packages you care about ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naib Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 6051 Location: Removed by Neddy
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
steveL wrote: | CosminG wrote: | I think a stable system with packages you want ~amd64 in the best option. |
Agreed
Naib wrote: | problem is such a list is quite long when compared to say a ... ~x86 system
To prove a point I went and submitted something like 50odd stability request bugs for ~amd64, there were some that were > 200days in ~amd64 with no pending bugs
Now some of these were stability request effecting all arch and those got stabilised very quickly.... but not amd64
basically amd64 seems to be understaffed so things sit in ~amd64 longer then they should |
That's just a reason to get involved and help out (and slap welp a bit ofc Check this to see the dangers of unstable across the board and remember: autounmask is your friend for the packages you care about |
Oh I know the danger, I got bitten by Uberlord pushing out a baselayout which caused yr system to lock up and thrash yr HD as the the devnode thing kinda stalled. Hosed my ext3 partition
but small price to pay for submitting bugs _________________
Quote: | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kernelOfTruth Watchman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 6111 Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
arnvidr l33t
Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 629 Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Had some trouble where I had to rebuild some packages after updating world, but am now happily running ~amd64 _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|