| 1 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 21:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > I'm probably missing something, but having an rsync server set up to |
| 4 |
> > return the stable trees seems rather silly, since those trees never |
| 5 |
> > change (only the "updates" trees change). A tarball would seem much |
| 6 |
> > simpler, and the appropriate tarball could be included on the livecd for |
| 7 |
> > that release. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Actually, the rsync server should check the variable VERSION (or |
| 10 |
> whatever) and update accordingly. Maybe we could do something as simple |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Stable does not change per defenition, so a tarbal is way more efficient than |
| 13 |
an rsync server calling home once in a while to check that indeed, nothing |
| 14 |
changed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> as putting a 2004.0-release file in the /usr/portage, so when VERSION |
| 17 |
> changes to 2004.1, they no longer match and the 2004.1 tree is rsync'd |
| 18 |
> instead. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That can be done with tarballs just as well. However don't expect syncing a |
| 21 |
tree to be the only thing to be done when updating. In general updating is |
| 22 |
more involved. If you say hook off your gentoo machine for a year and then |
| 23 |
try to update it is not at all trivial. You need to ensure that you update |
| 24 |
things in the right order, and sometimes even need to apply some force. We |
| 25 |
can find out that order in advance to make it easy for users, but don't |
| 26 |
pretend it is trivial. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Paul |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 32 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 33 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 34 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives