Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:30:45
Message-Id: 20040212103019.GK20630@mail.lieber.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree by stephen white
1 On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 05:30:39PM +1030 or thereabouts, stephen white wrote:
2 > There should be multiple baselines, so I can rebuild servers to what
3 > Gentoo was a year ago, two years ago, or 6 months ago. If I have a 2
4 > year old server, I shouldn't be forced to update packages because I
5 > want to rebuild the system to clean it up.
6
7 One thing that I personally will lobby against is the idea of backporting
8 security fixes to any significant degree. I don't think that's a core
9 comptetency of ours now and I don't think the time and effort required to
10 start this practice is worth it.
11
12 So, I don't object to the idea of multiple baselines, but if your
13 expectation is that security fixes will be backported to them, then I'd
14 object to that.
15
16 I realize lots of folks will disagree with me here. That's fine -- that's
17 why we're having this discussion.
18
19 --kurt

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree stephen white <steve@×××××××××××××××.au>