1 |
Hi! |
2 |
|
3 |
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:14AM +0200, Jos? Gonz?lez G?mez wrote: |
4 |
> for, let's say, a year WITH NO SECURITY BACKPORTS on them. This would be |
5 |
|
6 |
Impossible. There many means for 'stable'. For me, stable mean no |
7 |
security holes and no critical bugs as absolute requirements and all other |
8 |
things discussed under this topic in last year as less important requirements. |
9 |
|
10 |
For now I see only two alternatives for 'no security holes & no critical bugs' |
11 |
distribution: |
12 |
1) Use something like stable Debian/whatever distribution, which was |
13 |
released some time ago, and has old enough software with good support: |
14 |
updates with (backported) security fixes and critical bug fixes |
15 |
(or workarounds). Weakness of this way is having sometimes too old |
16 |
software, which is unacceptable because your customers will need |
17 |
features of newer software and you'll have to install & support it |
18 |
manually. |
19 |
2) Believe in Gentoo ARCH=x86 _IS_ 'stable' in all means and spend a little |
20 |
more time for compiliing/updating/testing. As bonus you'll have fairly |
21 |
up-to-date system with more features and your customers will love it. :) |
22 |
|
23 |
I vote for regular updates just because it's much more simpler to detect |
24 |
broken software and rollback to previous version when you update 1-3 |
25 |
packages at once, than when you update overall system once per year. |
26 |
|
27 |
If you think possibility of your application failure because of upgrading |
28 |
Gentoo is something which much never happens, even with fairly small |
29 |
possibility, then you just thinking wrong way. There always possibility for |
30 |
such failure because of bug in your application or hardware failure which |
31 |
you can't prevent! Of course we must do everything we can to minimize |
32 |
possibility of such application failure, including software update reason... |
33 |
But I think using Gentoo x86 and regular updates is good enough way to |
34 |
reach this goal. Statistics say SOME ppl have troubles in this setup in |
35 |
average once per year. I think it's good enough, and I hope Gentoo devs |
36 |
working on improving this statistics. :) And I'm sure same troubles happens |
37 |
even with stable Debian/whatever distribution from time to time. |
38 |
And will happens with 'stable portage tree' if it will born at some time! |
39 |
|
40 |
*** |
41 |
|
42 |
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think 'stable portage tree' topic isn't |
43 |
really about needs for MORE STABLE portage tree. I think it's about ppl |
44 |
who doesn't like regular updates, who update system only every 3+ months |
45 |
and who have troubles with such updates: too many packages changes at once, |
46 |
can't rollback to previous versions because they was deleted from portage, etc. |
47 |
|
48 |
For me - this is just because of portage nature: while it's possible to |
49 |
update when you want, doing this seldom make every update much harder and |
50 |
result in less stable system and feeling you've less control over system. |
51 |
|
52 |
I think this just should be documented as weakness (or just nature) of |
53 |
portage system: seldom (or no) updates result in less stable system! |
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
WBR, Alex. |
57 |
-- |
58 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |