| 1 |
hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
#1 |
| 4 |
it took me more time fixing some bugged 'stable' packages than reading |
| 5 |
through changelogs. second one was informative - i only manage two |
| 6 |
servers with different services/packages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
best, |
| 9 |
ilona |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
-- |
| 12 |
graphics artist / co-sysop of console++ |
| 13 |
http://72dpi.console.cc |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> All -- |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come |
| 18 |
> up |
| 19 |
> recently. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 22 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 23 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 24 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 29 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 30 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 31 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 32 |
> tree |
| 33 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> --kurt |
| 38 |
> |
Archives