| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sep 20, 2011 1:05 PM, "Patrick Lauer" <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Good idea, but won't work retroactively out of the box. So you'd need a |
| 4 |
>> helper script to figure out your current state (using portage version and |
| 5 |
>> tree snapshot maybe), then prepare the environment to upgrade |
| 6 |
>> (and how do you handle the "common" case of python 2.5 only which doesn't |
| 7 |
>> allow newest portage anyway?) |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Does it really need to be automated? Why not just have a big howto that we |
| 11 |
> append to whenever we break @system upgrades? The top would have a table |
| 12 |
> telling you where to start based on portage version or whatever. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The howto would contain links to portage and bindist snapshots (just what |
| 15 |
> you need to upgrade - maybe binary pkgs, maybe not). Then it would have a |
| 16 |
> list of steps to follow. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If you are three years out of date it would be a long journey, but it should |
| 19 |
> work. I don't think we need to make it a trivial upgrade, just a workable |
| 20 |
> one. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Why should we put effort into supporting people running a system based |
| 23 |
off of a three year old tree? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> And as far as extracting stage3s go - I've done it before in a pinch, but I |
| 27 |
> usually pick and choose individual files to keep it under control... |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Rich |
Archives