1 |
Am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:12:24 -0500 |
2 |
schrieb Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Francesco R. <vivo75@×××××.com> |
5 |
> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > long story short |
8 |
> > having a portage-20130126.tar.bz2 snapshot (before the EAPI 5 |
9 |
> > switch) greatly simplified the upgrade of an old server on a client. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Why not keep a copy on the servers? I mean |
12 |
> > http://distfiles.gentoo.org/snapshots/ |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Going back in time with portage is the easy part - it is in CVS. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The real problem is all the distfiles themselves, especially things |
18 |
> like out-of-tree patch tarballs hosted by devs. |
19 |
|
20 |
IMHO not even the worst problems as long as devs stop removing files |
21 |
they consider as "deprecated" or "old". I keep everything in my |
22 |
dev-space I ever put in an ebuild that landed in our official portage |
23 |
tree. Of course this only works as long as you reference that place in |
24 |
the affected ebuilds. Once you go the route to use mirror://gentoo in |
25 |
ebuilds as SRC_URI people are screwed as soon as the ebuild vanishes |
26 |
from portage. |
27 |
I'd love to see this (mis-)behavior being more vigorously discouraged |
28 |
in Gentoo-land... |
29 |
|
30 |
Cheers |
31 |
-- |
32 |
Lars Wendler |
33 |
Gentoo package maintainer |