| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:46:08 -0400 |
| 2 |
Stewart <bdlists@×××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Stuart Bouyer wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I think you misunderstand the complaint here. The problem (which has |
| 6 |
> > been brought up this list previously) is that there is no way to |
| 7 |
> > guarantee that I can get my server back to it's current configuration |
| 8 |
> > if I have to reinstall at a later date. Not only will new versions of |
| 9 |
> > ebuilds have been added to the portage tree, but there is a great |
| 10 |
> > chance that ebuild for the version of the package that I'm happy using |
| 11 |
> > will no longer be in portage tree. What I install using the 1.3 |
| 12 |
> > install CD today will be very different from what I installed 3 months |
| 13 |
> > ago. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> A long-standing problem is certainly the trigger-happy nature of so many |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> developers when it comes to removing "old" ebuilds. I've seen it to the |
| 18 |
> extreme where a new build was committed and all previous builds removed |
| 19 |
> before the new version (which already had Bugzilla reports) had even |
| 20 |
> been tested, letalone assured to be working. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
<rest of extremely good post snipped> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Just wanted to agree whole heartedly. Just yesterday I got so frustrated |
| 26 |
with gentoo being such a moving target it's actually stopping me from |
| 27 |
doing useful work, I actually considered going back to a prebuilt and |
| 28 |
stable distro (slackware). Now that's pretty yukky, but at least I'd be |
| 29 |
able to get on with doing what I'm supposed to be doing! |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Cheers. |
| 32 |
Jonathan Kelly. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|add usual aphorism referring to small change here| |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives