| 1 |
Chris wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you want to be able to build and maintain a server for a year or two, |
| 3 |
> then shouldn't you perhaps built an internal rsync server that doesn't |
| 4 |
> update? then you can rebuild whenever you like and it's under your |
| 5 |
> control. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The problem with this approach is that you don't benefit from security |
| 8 |
updates and if you try and update only portions of the "frozen" internal |
| 9 |
tree, well, you're going to be fighting to say the least. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This is what a number of users who need a frozen tree do now and it's |
| 12 |
proving to be way too much overhead. In theory, the admin maintaining |
| 13 |
the internal tree is doing the work the Gentoo security team and the |
| 14 |
arch maintainers are doing anyway, by themselves. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Most of the users doing this are doing so because we don't have a frozen |
| 17 |
tree and, in most cases, 190+ pairs of eyes are better than 1. :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I think 2 years is excessive, but I definately think the idea of a |
| 20 |
> frozen tree is imperative for a gentoo server. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
While I agree about 2 years, that's... |
| 23 |
a) an implementation detail and not important at this time |
| 24 |
b) something that is specific to each user and their environment |
| 25 |
c) something that wouldn't hurt those with shorter requirements if it |
| 26 |
was there. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Eric Sammer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
http://www.gentoo.org |
Archives