Gentoo Archives: gentoo-server

From: Mark Rudholm <rudholm@×××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-server@l.g.o
Subject: Re: baselayout was Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:02:19
Message-Id: 44E386FD.9090807@hyperreal.org
In Reply to: baselayout was Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree by Robert Welz
1 Robert Welz wrote:
2 > Jan Meier wrote:
3 >> Hello,
4 >>
5 >> how is the status of the stable portage tree? Is it already available?
6 >> I am really interested in it because I am tired of frequently updates
7 >> on my server just because there is a new version. Doing only security
8 >> update would be nice.
9 >>
10 >> Regards
11 >>
12 >> Jan
13 >
14 > I have noticed three updates to baselayout in three days. Is there a
15 > real reason for that high frequency of updates? I have the problem of
16 > etc-update on 14 servers and really could spend my time on something
17 > more productive i.e. learning ldap, fixing sguile and debugging xen for
18 > nfs. Now I fix all those init.d files all the day.
19
20 The general complaint I'm hearing about Gentoo is the lack of
21 configuration stability. Updates that aren't backward-compatible
22 are a pain. I had to reboot a system that hadn't been booted in
23 about a year and the modules didn't load because of the changes to
24 modules.autoload. I've had to clean up Apache conf files 'cause they
25 moved. I've had to deal with moving to the new "modular" xorg (and
26 try to hunt down all the X tools I used to have). Not to mention
27 the baselayout changes...
28
29 I used to laugh at http://www.funroll-loops.org/ but lately it
30 really does seem that the distro is being managed by those on
31 the young side.
32
33 Not that any other Linux distro is any better. I'm contemplating
34 going back to BSD, which is my company's standard anyway.
35
36 -Mark
37 --
38 gentoo-server@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: baselayout was Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree Jonas Fietz <info@××××××××××.de>