| 1 |
On 2013-02-14 2:26 PM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, my latest ideas is to "sync up" and then wait one week |
| 3 |
> before acutally installing those new packages. This would |
| 4 |
> allow the fodder that the good folks on this list catch, |
| 5 |
> bitch about (um, I mean file bug reports) and fix, to |
| 6 |
> occur first; then I can complete the package update |
| 7 |
> cautiously avoiding an "emerge sync". |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I do something similar, but on a rolling basis... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
1. Sync daily, keeping track of what updates appear *and when* |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
2. Once a package that wants to be updated has been in the list for |
| 14 |
at least 3 days, I update it/them, although I will usually wait |
| 15 |
a little longer (week or two) for some things, like things that |
| 16 |
are critical to booting (like grub, udev, etc) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
3. Rinse, repeat |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I started doing it this way ever since I got bit by the mailman minor |
| 21 |
update that broke things horribly (moved where all of its files were |
| 22 |
located without any warning, news item, or anything - ugh), and it has |
| 23 |
served me well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I do this manually, but I only have a couple of systems to manage. |
| 26 |
Obviously if you manage multiple systems, the more systems you manage, |
| 27 |
the more unwieldy doing this manually becomes, so scripting the process |
| 28 |
(or at least part of it) would become necessary at some point. |
Archives