1 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
2 |
> * only updated quarterly |
3 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
4 |
> tree |
5 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> --kurt |
10 |
|
11 |
I vote for #2 as well. Whether or not there is a larger amount of QA on |
12 |
the main portage tree, the server folks still need to deal with *features* |
13 |
changing. Along those lines, if there were a way to display changelogs of |
14 |
packages along with the portage update mechanisms, it would make my job a |
15 |
lot easier (if this is possible already, mind me). I was/am always getting |
16 |
bitten by debian packages changing something awful important, and me not |
17 |
knowing until I go dig into the package's changelog file *after* it's |
18 |
installed. |
19 |
|
20 |
-Dormando |