Re: [gentoo-server] QA or an unchanging portage tree?

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 12:45:46PM +0100, Matt Steven wrote:
> Maybe I'm putting the carriage before the horse, but I don't see how having a
> separate tree would be as efficient as having a 'x86-server' keyword for
> example added to all server-stable packages and security updates.

The problem would be people deleting things when they shouldn't. If we
are to provide an enterprise system it needs to be absolutely solid. I'd
worry about new developers "cleaning" the stable ebuilds. While this
shouldn't happen and needs to be fixed in the main tree anyway I really
think that its a good plan to have people specifically "trained" to look
after the enterprise tree to be the only ones able to add or remove
ebuilds from it.

> In any case it's obvious there's a demand for a more stable portage option,
> however it's implemented.  I think the keyword approach might be the simplest
> because it doesn't take away any functionality, and minimizes bloat.

Well whether it minimizes bloat depends on which tree you plan to use.
We're talking about adding ebuilds (because remember these ebuilds will
be there for a year, long after newer and greater versions are in
portage) to the normal gentoo tree which increases bloat for people who
don't plan to use that tree.

Also, people who do plan to use only the stable stuff will have an
absolute shedload of ebuilds they need to store/parse etc even though
they will never use them.

So I'm not sure bloat is a valid reason either way.

-- 
rob holland - [ tigger@g.o ]
irc://irc.freenode.net/#gentoo as tigger^
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tigger/tigger@××××××××××.asc