| 1 |
On Thursday 21 November 2002 00:43, Riyad Kalla wrote: |
| 2 |
> I notice so much activity on this list all the time with new packages |
| 3 |
> and new ideas and new ebuilds, etc. etc... |
| 4 |
> ... |
| 5 |
> This is cool and everything, but it also makes it hard for people that |
| 6 |
> need to get a "stable release quality" version to say slap on a |
| 7 |
> production server... |
| 8 |
> ... |
| 9 |
> How do I combat this? Say if I'm interested in a rock-solid snapshot of |
| 10 |
> Gentoo without going through an ungodly amount of administrative setup |
| 11 |
> and mirroring of the snapshot etc.? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Just an idea that does not require upstream supervision. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
rsync the portage tree as per normal and create two other |
| 16 |
directories to hold alternate portage trees and make two |
| 17 |
extra complete copies of the original tree. Setup a cron |
| 18 |
job everyday to basically (untested)... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
find /path/to/portage -type f -mtime +7 -exec cp {} /path/to/portage2 \; |
| 21 |
find /path/to/portage2 -type f -mtime +21 -exec cp {} /path/to/portage3 \; |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
so that any ebuild that lasts 7 days without being updated |
| 24 |
will get copied over to the portage2 dir tree, then the |
| 25 |
same from the portage2 tree to the portage3 tree after |
| 26 |
another 3 weeks... so that portage3 should always be 4 |
| 27 |
weeks behind the current developement... with ebuilds |
| 28 |
that have succesfully migrated there from lack of being |
| 29 |
modified, which infers some stability with that ebuild. |
| 30 |
A bit of individual fiddling with the +7 and +21 might |
| 31 |
be required to suit everyones idea of stability and use |
| 32 |
a softlink to point to whichever tree you actually want |
| 33 |
to use. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Think of it as the Debian unstable|testing|stable triage. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
--markc |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives