| 1 |
We've discussed this a little in the "Gentoo Weekly News Letter - Where |
| 2 |
is Gentoo Linux 1.4" thread. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Talked about how you could strain the updates through your own custom |
| 5 |
portage tree by hand, and then have your machines pull from that custom |
| 6 |
tree. So then you could craft something similar to how Debian Woody |
| 7 |
works now, where you know just what packages there are, and the only |
| 8 |
things changed are bug fixes and security updates. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Then we talked about how it was a bit of a large waste of effort to |
| 11 |
expect all sysadmins to be doing this for themselves, and it'd be handy |
| 12 |
to have some sort of subproject to maintain different portage trees for |
| 13 |
people to choose from, while the main gentoo crowd continues along |
| 14 |
advancing the bleeding edge. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The thread seems to have died off for tonight, though. In it, someone |
| 17 |
mentioned the security-only proposals for emerge but nothing more than a |
| 18 |
mention. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:38:55 +0200 |
| 21 |
Henti Smith <bain@×××××××.za> wrote: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> maintaining |
| 24 |
> my servers with security updates are becoming a problem and a package |
| 25 |
> that can scan a whole machine and tag packages for update that only |
| 26 |
> have security updates is really something I need. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives