| 1 |
Mikey wrote: |
| 2 |
> I have been emailing the published addresses for GLEP 19 for 2 months now |
| 3 |
> with no success. I am very interested in any ideas or projects that might |
| 4 |
> help gentoo be more server friendly, in an "enterprise" environment, for |
| 5 |
> lack of a better term. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I have an idea towards "stabilizing" portage for production environments, |
| 8 |
> but I am not knowledgeable enough about portage to know if it would even be |
| 9 |
> plausible. If this is the wrong place to ask this, please feel free to |
| 10 |
> point me in a better direction. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Check the archives for gentoo-dev and gentoo-server, several |
| 13 |
implementation plans have been presented in the not-so-distant past. |
| 14 |
However everyone seems to have a slightly different goal he wants to |
| 15 |
achieve, so maybe the best would be for people to make their goals very |
| 16 |
clear. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Basically, add a new value for "FEATURES". For lack of a better name, call |
| 19 |
> it "sticky". |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> FEATURES="sticky" |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> If this flag is present in make.conf: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> 1) emerge --sync does only updates, not deletes (don't ditch old ebuilds). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
No point, would rather add a RSYNC_OPTS var finally instead, which gives |
| 28 |
the same functionality (and much more). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> 2) Implement a new revision numbering scheme for ebuilds, -sX. Similar to |
| 31 |
> -rX, but for glsa updates only. It could be an abbreviation for sticky, |
| 32 |
> security, or stable, whatever you want. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> For example if I am currently running mysql-4.0.25, the only candidate an |
| 35 |
> emerge -u would consider would be mysql-4.0.25-s1, mysql-4.0.25-s2, etc.... |
| 36 |
> In other words, emerge considers only -sX in its upgrade calculations, |
| 37 |
> instead of -rX, and only considers the same version. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
No way. No visible benefit (you know about glep 14 / glsacheck, right?) |
| 40 |
and tons of issues (redundant ebuilds, ordering screwups, ...) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> 3) Package maintainers could create duplicate ebuilds for security-only |
| 43 |
> related revisions to packages, some other team could maintain them, this be |
| 44 |
> somehow automated, or this could be left up to the users to maintain |
| 45 |
> through their own overlays. My idea is fuzzy here... |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
No chance you get people to agree on something that will bloat the tree |
| 48 |
without any real benefit. Mind that we already revbump packages for |
| 49 |
security updates. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Plausible? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
No, this includes way too many changes to core functions (version |
| 54 |
comparison, resolver) with no visible benefit (from my POV). In case you |
| 55 |
haven't done so already take a good look at glep 14 and glsa-check |
| 56 |
(which implements the least-invasive update algorithm you seem to be after). |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Marius |
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives