[gentoo-server] Re: requirements for a more stable portage tree

[Jerry McBride]

Kurt Lieber wrote:

> All --
>
> In relation to GLEP 19[1], I'd like to take a step back and ensure we've
> got all the requirements defined for this particular project.
>
> Leaving behind the implementation details and focusing instead on pure
> requirements, I'd like to gather input from the group.  So far, we have:
>
> * A frozen tree, with pre-defined update intervals.  (this tree may be
> part
>   existing tree or a separate tree -- that's an implementation detail to
>   be covered later)
> * All ebuilds in this 'frozen tree' are guaranteed to be available for a
>   certain period of time so admins can plan their upgrades more
>   accurately.
>
> And...what else?
>
> Now, to try and contain this somewhat, please keep things on topic.  i.e.
> let's not take this down the "portage should have a database back-end" or
> "please create an ebuild for OpenGroupware! kthx."
>

Portage SHOULD have a database backend. MySql would be perfect. In the name
of performance, at least have a second look at this.

> The general guideline we're trying to follow is improving the
> functionality of the portage tree to make things like updating/emerging
> easier for enterprise environments.
>

If you're aiming for enterprise... it would do us well to re-visit the
"progress bar" discussion, along with a "-quiet" switch that actually
works...

Your average enterprise user won't be in the least bit interested in all the
text and data that currently logged to the screen/console.



-- 

******************************************************************************
                     Registered Linux User Number 185956
          http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=linux
             Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
This email account no longers accepts attachments or messages containing
html.
      7:02pm  up 1 day,  7:36,  3 users,  load average: 0.02, 0.05, 0.00