Archives
Archives
| From: | Andrew Cowie <andrew@×××××××××××××××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-server@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree | ||
| Date: | Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:52:11 | ||
| Message-Id: | 1076557922.17921.73.camel@localhost | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree by Kurt Lieber |
||
| 1 | On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 11:40, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 | > * All ebuilds in this 'frozen tree' are guaranteed to be available for a |
| 3 | > certain period of time so admins can plan their upgrades more accurately. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Tell me again why such ebuilds can't be maintained in existing portage - |
| 6 | all we have to do is *not* remove them from the tree so fast, no? |
| 7 | |
| 8 | AfC |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree | Eric Sammer <esammer@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-server] requirements for a more stable portage tree | Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o> |