1 |
Maybe I'm putting the carriage before the horse, but I don't see how having a |
2 |
separate tree would be as efficient as having a 'x86-server' keyword for |
3 |
example added to all server-stable packages and security updates. |
4 |
|
5 |
In any case it's obvious there's a demand for a more stable portage option, |
6 |
however it's implemented. I think the keyword approach might be the simplest |
7 |
because it doesn't take away any functionality, and minimizes bloat. |
8 |
|
9 |
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 09:36 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
10 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
13 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
14 |
|
15 |
-- |
16 |
Matt Steven |
17 |
GeniusWeb.com |
18 |
(712)580-2983 |