On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 17:35 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> We went through this before. I'm just being a grouse. PAM-0.99.3.0 is
> masked in portage right now meaning it hasn't been completely tested,
> etc. It's easy enough to unmask, but why should I bother? I feel no
> need to be an early adopter in this area. When the Gentoo devs unmask
> pam then I'll consider it, but why now? Will it give me any fewer
> xruns than I'm getting with realtime-lsm? It cannot. I'm at zero right
> now.
OK, thanks for clarifying this. My understanding of masking, unmasking,
etc in Gentoo was incomplete :-)
Received on Wed May 24 08:15:12 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 24 2006 - 08:15:12 EEST