Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:19:55
Message-Id: 1076631588.11058.93.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree by Kurt Lieber
1 On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 00:18, Kurt Lieber wrote:
2 > That particular combination works. I know it works. It has worked for
3 > months. However, if I upgrade either libxslt to 1.0.33 or libxml2 to 2.5.8,
4 > Weird Stuff starts happening and my life quickly becomes unpleasant. ...In my mind, that
5 > defeats the purpose of a stable/frozen tree.
6
7 That's a VERY fair argument Kurt, except I would temper it with this:
8
9 What "works" for you doesn't necessarily work for me.
10
11 [I presume] you arrived at that combination but bumping one or another
12 or the third until you found a combination that was stable for your
13 situation. Great!
14
15 But that may not necessarily be stable for someone else, and the trouble
16 comes when we consider this: who decides what is stable and what isn't?
17 It's effectively the same manpower problem as backporting software.
18
19 Debian does both these tasks. To their credit, they're very good at it,
20 but as we know, the end result doesn't always meet our needs.
21
22 I'm not against Gentoo going down that road, I'm just not sure you'll
23 get value for the huge effort that would need to be invested.
24
25 AfC
26
27
28 --
29 Andrew Frederick Cowie
30 Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd
31
32 Australia: +61 2 9977 6866 North America: +1 646 472 5054
33
34 http://www.operationaldynamics.com/

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree david@×××××××××.com