| 1 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 2 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 3 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 4 |
> tree |
| 5 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> --kurt |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I vote for #2 as well. Whether or not there is a larger amount of QA on |
| 12 |
the main portage tree, the server folks still need to deal with *features* |
| 13 |
changing. Along those lines, if there were a way to display changelogs of |
| 14 |
packages along with the portage update mechanisms, it would make my job a |
| 15 |
lot easier (if this is possible already, mind me). I was/am always getting |
| 16 |
bitten by debian packages changing something awful important, and me not |
| 17 |
knowing until I go dig into the package's changelog file *after* it's |
| 18 |
installed. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-Dormando |
Archives