| 1 |
Maybe I'm putting the carriage before the horse, but I don't see how having a |
| 2 |
separate tree would be as efficient as having a 'x86-server' keyword for |
| 3 |
example added to all server-stable packages and security updates. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
In any case it's obvious there's a demand for a more stable portage option, |
| 6 |
however it's implemented. I think the keyword approach might be the simplest |
| 7 |
because it doesn't take away any functionality, and minimizes bloat. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 09:36 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 10 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 13 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Matt Steven |
| 17 |
GeniusWeb.com |
| 18 |
(712)580-2983 |
Archives