| 1 |
IIRC, something like this is already in the planning for portage. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
jbw |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Nicholas George wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I know this doesn't quite fit into your two options...but it's really |
| 8 |
> just a slightly different way of handling the second. Maybe adding a |
| 9 |
> third keyword in addition to world and system would be helpful. For |
| 10 |
> example, running "emerge security" would give you security updates for |
| 11 |
> your current packages. This would give everyone, not only those who |
| 12 |
> choose to use a seperate portage tree, the option of sticking to a |
| 13 |
> particular version of an app or apps while still keeping them up to date |
| 14 |
> with any security flaws. |
| 15 |
> This, combined with a seperate, more stable, portage tree could benefit |
| 16 |
> both server and desktop users. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Nicholas George |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> All -- |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has |
| 25 |
>> come up |
| 26 |
>> recently. |
| 27 |
>> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 28 |
>> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA |
| 29 |
>> for |
| 30 |
>> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 31 |
>> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> If you were given the choice between: |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or 2) A seperate |
| 36 |
>> 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 37 |
>> * only updated quarterly |
| 38 |
>> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 39 |
>> tree |
| 40 |
>> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> --kurt |
Archives