Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: Jan Meier <jan.meier@××××××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:28:43
Message-Id: 200608161326.09999.jan.meier@zmnh.uni-hamburg.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree by "Ian P. Christian"
1 Am Mittwoch 16 August 2006 12:18 schrieb Ian P. Christian:
2 > On 08/16/06 Paul Kölle wrote:
3 > > The basic problem here is: Upstream may not publish "security fixes"
4 > > but just a new (fixed) version. If you want a "stable" tree, you have
5 > > to watch upstream cvs/svn/mailing lists and backport fixes. That is a
6 > > lot of work.
7 >
8 > that infrastructure is already in place in gentoo. Package maintainers
9 > do it... they need to just make it clear when they update an ebuild
10 > weather it's a general upgrade, or a security upgrade.
11
12 I think every update because of security reasons has a security announcement.
13
14 I would be willing to start such a stable tree, I am thinking of taking a
15 current portage tree, delete all ~arch ebuilds and create an overlay. Every
16 time a security announcement is fired up I will add the newer ebuild to the
17 overlay, checking for any really needed depencies.
18
19 The main portage tree will be updatedwith every new release, and the older
20 trees will be supported until three new releases. Supported architecture
21 would be currently only x86.
22
23 The overlay and the portage snapshot will I make public available.
24
25 What do you think about this?
26 The main problem is that it does not match the philosophy of gentoo. If other
27 architectures should also be available it would be a lot of work.
28
29 Regards
30
31 Jan
32
33 --
34 gentoo-server@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree "Paul Kölle" <pkoelle@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen <jaervosz@g.o>