1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
It looks like there are two separate issues here, packages in the |
5 |
profiles being removed and an enterprise gentoo. I'm mainly concerned |
6 |
at the moment about pinned package versions in the profiles being |
7 |
dropped out of portage which would break any machine build based on that |
8 |
profile. |
9 |
|
10 |
Given that in the 1.4 and 2004.0 profiles there is only one pinned |
11 |
package, it doesn't look like a major - its probably something that just |
12 |
~ the maintainer for that package should be aware of (some automated |
13 |
check as previously mentioned would be a good safety net). If there |
14 |
were no pinned packages in the profiles, then as long as the cat-pkg |
15 |
names didn't change, the profile would exist indefinitely with little |
16 |
effort on any devs part. |
17 |
|
18 |
Now I'm not suggesting that profiles should be kept forever, but if they |
19 |
are made redundant with little or no notice, it can cause big problems |
20 |
if you've got hundreds of machines installed with that profile. |
21 |
|
22 |
That said, I think an enterprise gentoo is a good idea, but its not |
23 |
something that the devs should be lumbered with on top of maintaining |
24 |
ebuilds. It sounds like there is more than enough to do already 8). |
25 |
Can anyone point me in the direction of the people involved in |
26 |
enterprise gentoo? We've got about 250 machines currently gentooed, |
27 |
with more to come, so we might be able to offer some insights into large |
28 |
scale installations. |
29 |
|
30 |
| |
31 |
| The CVS branching / Gentoo Enterprise idea (to me) sounds |
32 |
overengineered. |
33 |
| I haven't done a survey of IT managers to see what their expectations |
34 |
are, |
35 |
| but in my 14 years, management, etc -- I know what /my/ basic |
36 |
requirements |
37 |
| are. |
38 |
| |
39 |
| 1/ Conservative defaults |
40 |
| 2/ A regular, predictable release schedule |
41 |
| 3/ Packages are not updated between releases, except in cases of |
42 |
| vulnerabilities or major bugfixes |
43 |
| 4/ In the event of #3, basic regression testing before the changes are |
44 |
| committed |
45 |
| 5/ Supporting documentation & tools geared towards enterprise deployment |
46 |
| |
47 |
|
48 |
I agree, if we can get a enterprise framework that exists within most of |
49 |
the current gentoo infrastructure, that means less work for everyone, |
50 |
and therefore a higher chance of a sustainable project. |
51 |
|
52 |
A stable portage tree would be the single most useful thing here. We |
53 |
only re-sync our portage copy when security vulnerabilities are |
54 |
announced, but due to the dynamic nature of the portage tree, this often |
55 |
means upgrading lots of other packages in the process (e.g. mozilla 1.7 |
56 |
breaks epiphany which means a gnome 2.4 to 2.6 upgrade for us. Not a |
57 |
big deal, but something that needs to be communicated to users before hand). |
58 |
|
59 |
Baz |
60 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
61 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) |
62 |
|
63 |
iD8DBQFA6IG1JvZkjpKMF2wRAg0fAJ9BvwBrb7uAT3sHknaOoTkffdpDWACgs5rk |
64 |
1q7Zv3coQQhnddHAD7Ei8vA= |
65 |
=LQ7G |
66 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |