1 |
Corey Shields <cshields@g.o> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> [snip] |
4 |
|
5 |
> The reason for this is because with the current tree, old versions would be |
6 |
> removed too soon. Yet we don't want a larger tree for our general user base, |
7 |
> so having a seperate tree is the current solution. It would be identical to |
8 |
> the current tree with regards to new packages, but older packages would not |
9 |
> be deleted 3 months after they have become outdated, per se. This is the |
10 |
> whole idea behind a stable tree. If I can go a year without needing to |
11 |
> update gcc on a production server, then I don't want to have to update it. |
12 |
> Yet if the version I am running is pulled out of the tree, that may cause |
13 |
> problems for new installs. |
14 |
|
15 |
This issue is really an issue with our use of CVS and Rsync -- ideally, |
16 |
we would have some distribution system that `knows' about the Gentoo |
17 |
package version structure; old package versions shouldn't ever be |
18 |
`deleted' such that they are inaccessible through the normal |
19 |
distribution mechanism, but we don't want an ever growing portage tree |
20 |
size that must sit on users' and developers' machines. However, it is |
21 |
probably not feasible to write custom software for version control and |
22 |
distribution of the portage tree. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard |