1 |
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 7:33 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
2 |
> While I don't care about tarball vs. rsync (both don't matter that much |
3 |
> to me) I don't think a profile is a solution. It would contain too many |
4 |
> packages. Further it would still need maintenance for new packages as |
5 |
> packages that are not pinned in the profile are available freely |
6 |
|
7 |
I don't believe the object here is to put every package in the tree in the |
8 |
profiles. That's unrealistic to maintain, I agree. |
9 |
|
10 |
What should be in the profiles: system packages (libc, cc, kernel, etc), |
11 |
KDE, Gnome, dependencies and other commonly-used app packages (apache, |
12 |
php, etc). We start with a basic collection of packages we know everyone |
13 |
uses, and add to the profiles as folks complain about missing items. |
14 |
(This is where having voting in Bugzilla would be handy). |
15 |
|
16 |
Bottom line, "Enterprise Gentoo" would consist of whatever is in those |
17 |
profiles, which means they are thoroughly tested, supported. People can |
18 |
use packages not in the profile at their discretion, perhaps locking |
19 |
versions in /etc/portage. However packages don't get the same treatment |
20 |
& testing unless it's in an enterprise profile, and hence they aren't |
21 |
supported the same. |
22 |
|
23 |
We need to discuss the kinds of profiles we'd like to create (for different |
24 |
roles) ... e.g., workstation, firewall, webserver, fileserver, cluster, |
25 |
etc. This would, I believe, fit into the Installer project without any |
26 |
extra effort. |
27 |
|
28 |
Also Kurt proposed a schedule of one release per year I believe. I tend to |
29 |
think we can manage two (every 6 months), particularly early on as we need |
30 |
to get a feel of what people want/expect. |
31 |
|
32 |
Cheers, |
33 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@g.o] |
34 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |