| 1 |
On Dec 2, 2006, at 7:57 PM, Bryan Green wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I'd very interested in the different approaches here. I had |
| 4 |
> thought about a |
| 5 |
> static portage tree, but that left the problem of getting needed |
| 6 |
> updates, |
| 7 |
> especially GLSA's. Your suggested approach sounds very interesting. |
| 8 |
> How big of an extra administrative burden does that create? |
| 9 |
> Maintaining our |
| 10 |
> own version controlled portage tree might be a hard sell. Thanks |
| 11 |
> for the |
| 12 |
> script - I'll take a look at it. Is there any documentation out |
| 13 |
> there about |
| 14 |
> a static portage tree? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
On gentoo-dev there is a discussion going on about a sort of gentoo |
| 17 |
stable tree. Chris Gianelloni (if i remember it correctly) stated |
| 18 |
that he wanted to create a 2007.1 tree with the 2007.1 release and |
| 19 |
only put security fixes and required packages of security fixes in... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I did not make it clear: He wants to take a snapshot of the tree when |
| 22 |
2007.1 will be released and then like above. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
_But_ there are like 50 more unread messages of the thread in my |
| 25 |
mailbox, so might be this is not true anymore. Look at the gentoo-dev |
| 26 |
archives. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Philipp |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-cluster@g.o mailing list |
Archives