| 1 |
2010/6/11 Marcus Priesch <marcus@××××××××××××.at>: |
| 2 |
> when i do it this way - syncing portage tree and updating selectively - |
| 3 |
> i am not able to reproduce the entire build ... which - for me - is a no |
| 4 |
> go ... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Well, if you want to keep versions stable for years you might want to |
| 7 |
maintain an own portage tree and mount this via e.g. NFS on the |
| 8 |
clients. To reproduce those builds you just need also to save the |
| 9 |
versions of your build and do |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
for p in $(cat mypackagelist); do emerge =$p; done |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
However, you need to make sure that all source tarballs are avail |
| 14 |
for years, which might be a problem as well. Furthermore, newer |
| 15 |
versions of packages you _need_ to update (like your tzdata) |
| 16 |
will probably require newer dependencies as well... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> thats why i wanted to use ubuntu lts - it's maintained with bug fixes |
| 19 |
> for five years and doesnt change versions ... but as all of you might |
| 20 |
> agree ... it's a no-go for other reasons ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I really think keeping versions stable for years and backporting fixes |
| 23 |
is a lot of work and you need to make sure you have the resources |
| 24 |
to maintain an own portage tree and backports of important fixes. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Sven |
Archives