| 1 |
On 08/16/06 Jan Meier wrote: |
| 2 |
> I am using glsa-check for reporting vulnerable software, currently |
| 3 |
> not for updating. I will give "emerge imagemagick" a shot, maybe that |
| 4 |
> has less dependencies :) . With your answeres in mind I came to the |
| 5 |
> opinion that there is not a real need for a "stable portage tree". |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I personally think there is a a large need for a stable tree. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I run 10s of servers, and I'm sure there's people on this list who run |
| 10 |
many more. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Updating every 6/12 months is fine in principle, but it means going |
| 13 |
though 10's of machines updating config files and resolving conflics. |
| 14 |
This is a painful task, it's fine for 1 machine, it's fine for 5... but |
| 15 |
you have any real number of servers to maintain and it ends up taking |
| 16 |
hours or days to upgrade your servers. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A stable tree that has an update cycle of something like 6 months and |
| 19 |
perhaps a security overlay (implement as an overlay perhaps to reduce |
| 20 |
the sync time and therefore resources) would be idea - then upgrading |
| 21 |
between 'releases' could be well documented and coordinated. |
| 22 |
Unfortunatly, this is a huge project - and without a small/medium team |
| 23 |
of dedicated gentoo devs, it's not going to happen. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk |
Archives