| 1 |
Greetings, |
| 2 |
I would like to cast my vote for #2. I run an ISP almost entirely on |
| 3 |
gentoo servers, and although I like the constant updates on my laptop, |
| 4 |
etc., It seems to take a fair amount of time trying to ensure my servers |
| 5 |
all have a similar profile that I know works. I may update 1 server and |
| 6 |
test the updates, and by the time those are ready to go live there are |
| 7 |
more pending. Gentoo has been my primary OS for some time now, and I have |
| 8 |
happily been replacing FreeBSD and SuSE servers as fast as I can :) Thanks |
| 9 |
again to everyone for all the great work |
| 10 |
-John |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
John Barton |
| 13 |
jbarton@××××××××××××××.net |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I have never really looked into how portage is made up to deeply but I |
| 16 |
> would imagine that doing |
| 17 |
> number 2 would have the most benefit and if you are using cvs as I think |
| 18 |
> you are then you might be |
| 19 |
> able to just have a different branch in the tree that has like a 6 month |
| 20 |
> life span. By default you would get |
| 21 |
> the bleeding edge stuff so that it gets tested more but for those who |
| 22 |
> needed a slower moving target |
| 23 |
> they could just change the module they are rsyncing too from |
| 24 |
> gentoo-portage to gentoo-stable-portage |
| 25 |
> or something like that. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Provided the mirrors don't mind the extra space usage number 2 is going |
| 28 |
> to be the way to go because |
| 29 |
> it is going to be easier to implement IMO and have the most benefits. |
| 30 |
> The part I am not sure about is |
| 31 |
> at what point would something qualify to make it into stable ? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
>>All -- |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>>I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come |
| 38 |
>> up |
| 39 |
>>recently. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>>There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 42 |
>>we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA |
| 43 |
>> for |
| 44 |
>>the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 45 |
>>dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>>If you were given the choice between: |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>>1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 50 |
>>2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 51 |
>> * only updated quarterly |
| 52 |
>> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 53 |
>> tree |
| 54 |
>> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
>>Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
>>--kurt |
| 59 |
>> |
| 60 |
>> |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> -- |
| 63 |
> Rodney Amato |
| 64 |
> Systems Administrator |
| 65 |
> http://www.squiz.net |
| 66 |
>>> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> |
| 67 |
> T: + 61 2 9568 6866 |
| 68 |
> F: + 61 2 9568 6733 |
| 69 |
> .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../> |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
Archives