1 |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:00:11PM +1000, Phillip Berry wrote: |
2 |
> Just wondering if there has been any progress on the stable portage tree? |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Also, syncing the normal tree removes old versions of ebuilds, obviously this |
5 |
> is inappropriate for a production environment where for various reasons it is |
6 |
> sometimes neccessary to stay at an arbitrary version of an application. The |
7 |
> loss of the ebuild specific to the legacy version of the application is a |
8 |
> pain, will the stable tree retain older versions of ebuilds instead of |
9 |
> removing them? |
10 |
|
11 |
I think it isn't totally difficult to develop and maintain a stable tree for |
12 |
an environment. You install Gentoo, let the install go through a few pillars |
13 |
depending on your environment. Then, monitor Portage upgrades and backport |
14 |
those to your stable environment. |
15 |
|
16 |
I have had good luck with this approach for dedicated servers. After all, |
17 |
when you know what software is available on the server (only a small portion |
18 |
of all the software available through Portage) upgrades are a lot less |
19 |
frequent. |
20 |
|
21 |
Any upgrades that are pending (for instance JRE updates if you are running |
22 |
J2EE servers) can easily be sorted out. It's still a lot of manual work |
23 |
though, but I think it isn't easy to concentrate this on the distribution. |
24 |
|
25 |
After all, one environment always differs from another. Where minor upgrades |
26 |
are acceptable by a few, others might not like it. |
27 |
|
28 |
Wkr, |
29 |
Sven Vermeulen |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org |
33 |
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp |
34 |
Gentoo Council Member |
35 |
|
36 |
The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>> |