| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thus, my suggestion. Why not create a second feature, toolchain-buildpkg, |
| 3 |
> I'm calling it here for purposes of developing the suggestion, that's on |
| 4 |
> by default, as contrasted to the normal buildpkg being off by default. |
| 5 |
> The Gentoo Handbook would then of course be modified to cover it and |
| 6 |
> mention why Gentoo recommends that it stay on. Portage would then always |
| 7 |
> buildpkg anything rescue-critical, including portage itself, gcc, |
| 8 |
> binutils, coreutils, python, etc. Don't forget glibc (which would of |
| 9 |
> course need put in place from a LiveCD, one's "emergency" copy of the root |
| 10 |
> partition, etc). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What is a probability that user running *stable* branch would bork his |
| 13 |
box by upgrades? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Aren't those running ~ARCH expected to make backups? Is it such a |
| 16 |
problem to reboot their *testing* boxes from some CD and restore backups |
| 17 |
from such environment? (I know about special cases like machines w/o |
| 18 |
CD-ROM/netboot, but I think their owners are skilled enough to find |
| 19 |
other solution which better suits their needs.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why bother with such a feature which won't be used by most of people, |
| 22 |
instead of doing something "more useful"? Just my 2 cents, though. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-jkt |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives