| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:44:20 +0200 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017, 01:22:44 CEST schrieb Peter Stuge: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I hold a perhaps radical view: I would like to simply remove stable. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I continue to feel that maintaining two worlds (stable+unstable) |
| 7 |
> > carries with it an unneccessary cost. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's not feasible. It would kill off any semi-professional or professional |
| 11 |
> Gentoo use, where a minimum of stability is required. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> (Try keeping ~10 machines on stable running without automation. That's already |
| 14 |
> quite some work. Now try the same with ~arch. Now imagine you're talking about |
| 15 |
> 100 or 1000 machines.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
~50 hosts here on ~arch. Stable vs unstable is not an issue for |
| 18 |
production. The main problem (at least in my case) is upgrade path, |
| 19 |
especially with hosts not that often updated. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Upgrade of Gentoo-based production hosts takes considerable time, |
| 22 |
not just due to compilation time and issues, but due to the need to |
| 23 |
update dozens (sometimes hundreds) of config files properly and |
| 24 |
this process can't be fully automated. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Another problem is short support time: only update path for systems |
| 27 |
up to one year old is supported more or less. IRL even half year |
| 28 |
old system may be PITA for a full update. To make it worse there |
| 29 |
are cases when people deliberately make such updates harder: some |
| 30 |
developers are refusing to set minimal version requirements for |
| 31 |
dependencies if dependency versions below minimal were below latest |
| 32 |
stable 1 year age. While such behaviour is within established |
| 33 |
policies I frankly do not understand such devs: having |
| 34 |
>=cat/foo-1.2.3 instead of cat/foo doesn't hurt, but makes life of |
| 35 |
fellow users much easier. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives