Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Thrailkill <xwred1@×××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4"
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:19:03
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Weekly News Letter - "Where is Gentoo Linux 1.4" by rob holland
1 For some reason I don't feel to comfortable only being able to choose
2 between a moving "stable" lump, and a faster moving unstable lump.
4 Just a meager user comment. I run Gentoo "stable" on my desktop and
5 laptop, but it seems like things still change a bit too much and too
6 largely to where I'd feel comfortable deploying it on a server.
8 Or heck, if I'm doing a large-scale complex deployment, there doesn't
9 seem to be a way for me to stick with what I know may be good (i.e.
10 1.4-release) and still get bug fixes and security updates through
11 Portage short of me maintaining my own tree and having my machines pull
12 that down.
14 When 1.4 is done and 1.5 starts getting all the stuff that is considered
15 unstable now, is there going to be a new profile for 1.5 I guess? Or is
16 it going to be a little sloppier, with both 1.4-stable and 1.4-unstable
17 slipping forward more and more before a new profile gets made?
19 Seems like being really anal about profiles, i.e. when the dev team
20 decides to make a new profile for such and such feature set, could
21 accomplish most of this. Even then though, wouldn't the local Portage
22 tree have to contain all the ebuilds in all the profiles? That could
23 start getting fat after a while, since any one machine is only going to
24 use a subset of ebuilds. If strict version control was done with
25 profiles, it might be a good idea then to make rsyncs pull down just the
26 piece of the tree with the ebuilds for the current profile.
28 Yes, I know, long long musing to go with such a small quote. Granular
29 version control makes me feel comfortable about what goes onto my
30 machines.
33 On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:07:25 +0000
34 rob holland <robh@g.o> wrote:
36 > The stable/unstable stuff is done using keywords in portage, rather
37 > than handled using tags in CVS. The reason being that only developers
38 > use CVS so the branches would be irrelevant to the users, they'd just
39 > get whatever branch the rsync mirrors were "tuned to".
41 --
42 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list