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 :-)
