| 1 |
I know this doesn't quite fit into your two options...but it's really |
| 2 |
just a slightly different way of handling the second. Maybe adding a |
| 3 |
third keyword in addition to world and system would be helpful. For |
| 4 |
example, running "emerge security" would give you security updates for |
| 5 |
your current packages. This would give everyone, not only those who |
| 6 |
choose to use a seperate portage tree, the option of sticking to a |
| 7 |
particular version of an app or apps while still keeping them up to date |
| 8 |
with any security flaws. |
| 9 |
This, combined with a seperate, more stable, portage tree could benefit |
| 10 |
both server and desktop users. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nicholas George |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 15 |
> All -- |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'd like to poll the group to get your input on a question that has come up |
| 18 |
> recently. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 21 |
> we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 22 |
> the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 23 |
> dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> If you were given the choice between: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> 1) A more robust QA process for the main portage tree or |
| 28 |
> 2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 29 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 30 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 31 |
> tree |
| 32 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Which would you find more valuable and why? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> --kurt |
Archives