| 1 |
Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is really getting into a whole different |
| 3 |
> discussion altogether about having a security update only tree, but |
| 4 |
> there has been talk of this a few times before...search the mailing list |
| 5 |
> archives. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yep, of course I know; I wasn't asking for "stable" tree. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Removing old profiles will do nothing other than forcing them to set a |
| 10 |
> new profile. Changing the profile won't stop people from doing security |
| 11 |
> only updates. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Okay, as long as "changing the profile" won't affect people *much* (I |
| 14 |
mean if it doesn't break their boxes), it is perfectly correct. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I asked just to make sure that broken /etc/make.profile won't completely |
| 17 |
screw up Portage or so :-). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-jkt |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives