1 |
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 11:33, Toby Dickenson wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 20 November 2002 4:21 pm, Chad Huneycutt wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Use profiles for this. The process would go something like this: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > 1. Install Gentoo on your dev box |
7 |
> > 2. Tweak until the stability is where you want it (i.e., find stable |
8 |
> > versions of software, make patches -- and submit them to bugzilla, and |
9 |
> > place any outside ebuilds in /usr/local/portage or whatever and set |
10 |
> > PORTAGE_OVERLAY -- or whatever the var is) |
11 |
> > 3. Once you have the packages from portage like you want them, create a |
12 |
> > new profile: |
13 |
> > # cd /usr/portage/profiles |
14 |
> > # cp -r your_current_profile my_stable_profile |
15 |
> > # mv my_stable_profile /usr/local/portage/profiles |
16 |
> > # rm /etc/make.profile |
17 |
> > # ln -s /usr/local/portage/profiles/my_stable_profile /etc/make.profile |
18 |
> > # cd /usr/local/portage/profiles/my_stable_profile |
19 |
> > # echo "all_my_package-revisions" > packages |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > The packages file is well commented, but basically you can use it to |
22 |
> > "pin" the versions of all your packages (or just the ones that matter). |
23 |
> > 4. Now you should be able to use that profile directory as |
24 |
> > /etc/make.profile on all your systems. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Im sure that wouldnt work. Your profile would refer to your chosen version, |
27 |
> but that doesnt help when the ebuild (and other files) for that version is |
28 |
> removed from portage. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I agree with you that this *should* work. That means that old revisions would |
31 |
> never be removed from portage. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> But they are, so it doesnt :-( |
34 |
|
35 |
That is a totally different problem, though, which could easily be |
36 |
remedied on the user side. I agree that it is a problem, though. I |
37 |
offered a scheme for automating ebuild removal of the portage tree some |
38 |
time back on -core, but it fell on mostly deaf ears. I personally |
39 |
almost never remove old ebuilds unless they are ancient or broken. We |
40 |
are certainly aware of this issue, though; the alternative arch devs get |
41 |
bitten all the time because someone will update an ebuild, mask it on |
42 |
alternative arches, and then delete the old ebuild, thus leaving no |
43 |
unmasked versions for the alt arch. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Chad Huneycutt |
47 |
chadh@g.o |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
-- |
51 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |