| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 04:19:40PM -0800, Joby Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> IIRC, something like this is already in the planning for portage. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Nicholas George wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >I know this doesn't quite fit into your two options...but it's really |
| 7 |
> >just a slightly different way of handling the second. Maybe adding a |
| 8 |
> >third keyword in addition to world and system would be helpful. For |
| 9 |
> >example, running "emerge security" would give you security updates for |
| 10 |
> >your current packages. This would give everyone, not only those who |
| 11 |
> >choose to use a seperate portage tree, the option of sticking to a |
| 12 |
> >particular version of an app or apps while still keeping them up to date |
| 13 |
> > with any security flaws. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No this is not proposed in the way you describe it. The emerge security |
| 16 |
idea is to upgrade ebuilds which need to be upgraded due to security |
| 17 |
issues. This won't help you keep the versions of packages you want, |
| 18 |
because devs aren't going to be backporting security fixes to all |
| 19 |
versions of a package in a tree, they'll just bump the ebuild to the new |
| 20 |
fixed version. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Hope that made sense. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
rob holland - [ tigger@g.o ] |
| 26 |
irc://irc.freenode.net/#gentoo as tigger^ |
| 27 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tigger/tigger@××××××××××.asc |
Archives