| 1 |
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 5:14 pm, Olivier Crete wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The main problem with the profiles approach is that need to keep all of |
| 5 |
> the "old" ebuilds for previous profiles in the tree, unnecessarily |
| 6 |
> bloating the tree and then we have the risk that package maintainers |
| 7 |
> will remove the stable packages after a while by mistake.. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That is why repoman exists. In theory, repoman would block any commits |
| 10 |
removing ebuilds from the tree which are needed by a profile in the same |
| 11 |
way that it prevents ebuilds with broken dependencies or syntax from being |
| 12 |
committed. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> My favorite solution is the portage snapshot + overlay solution. Where |
| 15 |
> the gentoo-stable project makes a snapshot (like we already do on every |
| 16 |
> livecd), it could even be the same snapshot. And then maintain (in a new |
| 17 |
> tree) an overlay with only security fixes. This tree could then be |
| 18 |
> rsynced with gensync (or with a modified portage). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If we were using something besides CVS (like arch) I might agree with that, |
| 21 |
at least in part... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@g.o] |
| 25 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives