| 1 |
On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 15:10 -0800, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/9/12 1:17 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Starting from a question by Markos in #gentoo-portage about whether to |
| 4 |
> > remove entries in profiles/updates for tree-cleaned packages... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What's the advantage of doing that? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
None, it actually could make it more difficult for a user to know why |
| 9 |
his old installed pkg isn't available. It was just what started the |
| 10 |
discussion about cleaning the old updates. Zac suggested this thread |
| 11 |
for opinions... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
... |
| 14 |
[12:46] <zmedico> dol-sen: you should take a poll on the gentoo-dev ml |
| 15 |
to see how long people think we should keep them |
| 16 |
... |
| 17 |
[12:47] <zmedico> yeah, seems like it's good to end-of-life them at some |
| 18 |
point |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > I propose that we say, once a year, schedule a tree-cleaning of old |
| 22 |
> > updates files. These updates files could be added to a tarball made |
| 23 |
> > available for download. That way if they are needed to update a system |
| 24 |
> > older than what the main tree has been tree-cleaned to. They can then be |
| 25 |
> > manually downloaded, extracted to the normal location and then run the |
| 26 |
> > "fixpackages" command. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I think that complicates the process. :-/ But maybe the advantages |
| 29 |
> outweigh that. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It does make updating an ancient system slightly more difficult. But |
| 33 |
that would be the least of the user's troubles compared to some of the |
| 34 |
pkg updates, tinderbox downloads and manual unpacks that have been |
| 35 |
needed to be done. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
But on the other hand how long should we keep that stale info in the |
| 38 |
tree? See below :) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> > The main question here is what is a reasonable length of time to keep |
| 41 |
> > the updates actively in-tree? |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > -- From my experience in the forums, I think any updates older than |
| 44 |
> > 4 years should be subject to tree-cleaning. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Yeah, 4 years is ancient and would probably be non-trivial to update anyway. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
yup, they are |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> > -- Most old systems that have been updated tend to be less than that, |
| 52 |
> > probably about 2 years. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> 2 years seem reasonable. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
That works too. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
FYI... Currently there are updates files in profiles/updates/ dating |
| 60 |
back to 2004 |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
Archives