| 1 |
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 19:13 -0500, Corey Shields wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 09 August 2004 19:01, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 3 |
> > One think that I think *everyone* agrees on is that any stable tree needs |
| 4 |
> > to be regularly updated with security fixes. With this in mind, I'm |
| 5 |
> > concerned with trying to maintain multiple separate SYNC modules. We'd |
| 6 |
> > have to upgrade each one with every GLSA, thus doubling or tripling the |
| 7 |
> > amount of CVS work needed each time. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Having a stable system double or tripes the amount of work every time |
| 10 |
anyways because we need to test on each "stable tree".. Newer versions |
| 11 |
might not work anyways.. CVS work is very little compared to testing |
| 12 |
work. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> One quick hack is to just sync the full tree to the stable tree without the |
| 15 |
> --delete option, so that everything old stays and we get all of the new |
| 16 |
> programs. Any updates we want to activate would need to be modified in the |
| 17 |
> profiled mask files. No CVS work for the tree involved here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The problem with that is that the tree for stable users will start |
| 20 |
growing and they will start getting lots of old crap... And it doesnt |
| 21 |
give us separation of "base" and "updates" that I think many "corporate" |
| 22 |
types want.. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Olivier Crête |
| 26 |
tester@g.o |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives