| 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. |
| 3 |
|
| 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. |
| 7 |
|
| 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. |
| 13 |
|
| 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? |
| 18 |
|
| 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. |
| 27 |
|
| 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. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:07:25 +0000 |
| 34 |
rob holland <robh@g.o> wrote: |
| 35 |
|
| 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". |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives