| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:37:50AM -0500 or thereabouts, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> I still like the idea of separate rsync branches. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> gentoo-2004.0-stable and gentoo-2004.0-updates, both taken via rsync |
| 5 |
> with -stable being static per release and -updates being dynamic and an |
| 6 |
> overlay to ensure it always overrides the -stable unless a user emerges |
| 7 |
> a =cat/ver combo from stable. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
So if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting having a total of 8 |
| 10 |
rsync branches: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
gentoo-2004.0-stable |
| 13 |
gentoo-2004.0-updates |
| 14 |
gentoo-2004.1-stable |
| 15 |
gentoo-2004.1-updates |
| 16 |
... |
| 17 |
gentoo-2004.3-updates |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Is that correct? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If so, I like the idea in theory, but how do you make sure security fixes |
| 22 |
get into all the appropriate trees? I can see a huge QA nightmare with |
| 23 |
devs forgetting to include some critical security fix in the older trees. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Then there's the whole issue of dependencies of security updates that I |
| 26 |
mentioned in my reply to danarmak. That would still be a problem here. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
We could write a whole crapload of logic into repoman so it could help with |
| 29 |
this, but that's a lot more invasive than I had planned on this GLEP being. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That said, I do like the idea if you can help me understand how it's |
| 32 |
manageable without being overly cumbersome to implement. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Dual portage trees requires no portage changes as portage supports |
| 35 |
> multiple overlays now. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
OK, good to know. I wasn't sure if this was fully functional yet. That |
| 38 |
said, is it easy to use? Can I type "emerge sync --updates-overlay" or |
| 39 |
something similar? If we're expecting users to use rsync directly, then I |
| 40 |
think that's probably unrealistic. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
--kurt |
Archives