| 1 |
Hi Daniel |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Am 17.02.2018 um 08:56 schrieb Daniel Robbins: |
| 4 |
> [...] |
| 5 |
> I've been reflecting on these things because we've instituted a new |
| 6 |
> system in Funtoo that seems to be helping. This is not an attempt to |
| 7 |
> toot my own horn, but I am finally starting to feel a bit of stress |
| 8 |
> relief in this area due to a new process we are using. We have organized |
| 9 |
> the upstream Portage tree into 'kits', or sub-trees, and then we |
| 10 |
> snapshot these sub-trees. Our snapshotted versions are called 'prime' |
| 11 |
> kits, and we will backport security fixes and do cautious version |
| 12 |
> bumping in these kits. But then we work on newer versions of kits to |
| 13 |
> eventually replace the (aging) prime kits, and these are based on newer |
| 14 |
> snapshots from Gentoo. And we also test to make sure that people can |
| 15 |
> upgrade cleanly (no weird dep issues) when transitioning from the older |
| 16 |
> kit to the newer kit. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I haven't thought enough yet about the actual proposal to comment on it, |
| 19 |
but this systems seems to be similar to what openSuse has: projects |
| 20 |
taking care of a set of packages in a bleeding edge manner, occasional |
| 21 |
snapshots of those projects (or single packages?) make it into a final |
| 22 |
distro, which afterwards gets backports only. Or am I wrong? |
| 23 |
There it seems to work quiet well so far, except for some packages |
| 24 |
shared between all the projects (like the compiler), which are then |
| 25 |
lagging behind. How do you avoid this or similar issues of |
| 26 |
cross-dependencies between the kits? Especially with the possibility of |
| 27 |
changing dependencies with USE flags? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Tiziano |
Archives