| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:48:26 +0000 |
| 3 |
Matt Wilson <matt@×××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Fair enough, that makes sense, though I suspect that most |
| 8 |
> companies/organisations that would use *any* tree would want to keep |
| 9 |
> up with security releases - making the "release" tree unused - unless |
| 10 |
> the proposal was that anything that may need essential (e.g. security) |
| 11 |
> patches went in a separate tree (sorry if this is the case, I missed |
| 12 |
> the start of this discussion). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Actually, thats not the case. In the case of a company in this scale, or |
| 16 |
doing this sort of work, they will simply -not consider- Gentoo as it |
| 17 |
doesn't meet the base prerequesit. That goes for Debian as well, which |
| 18 |
also have the "move updates into main tree" mentality that makes |
| 19 |
maintainance a hell. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Do take the time to read the other posts on this issue though, if you |
| 22 |
don't have them locally, google for "gentoo-dev archives" should help. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
//Spider |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
begin .signature |
| 29 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 30 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 31 |
end |
Archives