Re: [gentoo-dev] Round 2: GLEP 19 -- Gentoo Stable Portage Tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:33, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2004 21:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm probably missing something, but having an rsync server set up to
> > > return the stable trees seems rather silly, since those trees never
> > > change (only the "updates" trees change).  A tarball would seem much
> > > simpler, and the appropriate tarball could be included on the livecd for
> > > that release.
> >
> > Actually, the rsync server should check the variable VERSION (or
> > whatever) and update accordingly.  Maybe we could do something as simple
>
> Stable does not change per defenition, so a tarbal is way more efficient than
> an rsync server calling home once in a while to check that indeed, nothing
> changed.
>
> > as putting a 2004.0-release file in the /usr/portage, so when VERSION
> > changes to 2004.1, they no longer match and the 2004.1 tree is rsync'd
> > instead.

I guess that seems like it would work just as well.  In fact, I agree
that the tarball idea would be a better solution.

> That can be done with tarballs just as well. However don't expect syncing a
> tree to be the only thing to be done when updating. In general updating is
> more involved. If you say hook off your gentoo machine for a year and then
> try to update it is not at all trivial. You need to ensure that you update
> things in the right order, and sometimes even need to apply some force. We
> can find out that order in advance to make it easy for users, but don't
> pretend it is trivial.

I didn't mean to make it sound trivial.  I know it would not be.  I was
just trying to make it simpler for the sake of discussion at this time.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?