| 1 |
Since People seem to like the idea, is there any chance of developing |
| 2 |
along this line of thought? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
-----Forwarded Message----- |
| 6 |
From: rd <rdg@××××××××××××.com> |
| 7 |
To: gentoo-user <gentoo-user@g.o> |
| 8 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers. |
| 9 |
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:16:40 -0600 |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 16:08, Tom Wesley wrote: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I think that there is a high degree of probability that |
| 14 |
> portage-ng(-ng(-ng)) ;) will include some form of tree selection. I |
| 15 |
> personally would like to see something like this. Either pointing to a |
| 16 |
> completely different rsync server set, or having a extended set of |
| 17 |
> architecture definitions. I prefer the latter, as in x86-server, |
| 18 |
> ~x86-server, x86-desktop, x86-testing and the like. Security updates |
| 19 |
> would of course need to penetrate all types here. Maybe ~x86 and x86 |
| 20 |
> simply isn't enough of a split between what is stable and what isn't |
| 21 |
> anymore, especially because enterprise server people are looking at |
| 22 |
> Gentoo. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Just my 2p... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Tom -- |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think that this is a good approach. It would surely work for me. |
| 29 |
Have you been following portage-ng-ng-ng? Is this idea being consider? |
| 30 |
Have you sent this to the portage-dev list? Would you.... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-rdg |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Tom Wesley |
Archives