| 1 |
Kurt, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'm a major fan of this idea - it would go a long way into |
| 4 |
making it easier to "sell" (as an idea, not for fee, not as a |
| 5 |
product or serevice) Gentoo as a viable platform in the |
| 6 |
office. Managers around here like two things: being able to |
| 7 |
bring the box up to speed with current security concerns and no |
| 8 |
downtime because an emerge -U suggests we spend precious |
| 9 |
cycles updating a package just because its new. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes, I realize that makes me flame-bait ("Gentoo is for the |
| 12 |
bleeding edge, not the office", yada yada yada), but this would make |
| 13 |
a great way of compromising up to date with not more than we need |
| 14 |
right now. Not sure about the implimentation of a stable:arch, |
| 15 |
though I'm sure carpaski and team is loath to having a new |
| 16 |
field added as an alternative (stable:true/false?). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Will this glep be tied into any of the discussions/work on the |
| 19 |
"emerge security-updates" (my own words, can't remember what |
| 20 |
direction that was actually going in) thread? Just seems like the |
| 21 |
two should be/would be pretty close together in final |
| 22 |
form. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-mike |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:17:06AM -0500, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 27 |
> All -- |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I've posted GLEP 19 which talks about the inclusion of a new 'stable' tree |
| 30 |
> in portage that is updated on a periodic basis and only contains security |
| 31 |
> and major bugfixes out of cycle. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0019.html |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Please take a moment to review the GLEP and offer any feedback or ask any |
| 36 |
> questions. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> --kurt |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives