| 1 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>There are a number of areas where Gentoo Linux could stand improvement -- |
| 4 |
>we all know this. Two examples being discussed now are a) improved QA for |
| 5 |
>the portage tree and b) the fact that the portage tree is very fluid and |
| 6 |
>dynamic, which makes it more difficult to use in enterprise environments. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
I agree. I have a few production servers running 24/7 here, and to |
| 10 |
automatically update with emerge sync and emerge -uD world every night |
| 11 |
is not the best idea. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>2) A seperate 'server' portage tree that offered: |
| 14 |
> * only updated quarterly |
| 15 |
> * security and major bug-fixes off-cycle, but no other changes to the |
| 16 |
> tree |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Really important. I'd opt for this since I long have been expecting this |
| 20 |
kind of improvement. It saves a great deal of manual updating = less work :) |
| 21 |
Keep a separate environment for us who need security and stability more |
| 22 |
than features, I think that some kind of new ACCEPT_KEYWORDS feature |
| 23 |
would make the portage tree a lot more complicated, both for dev's and |
| 24 |
users. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> * guaranteed minimum life of all ebuilds in the tree |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
That is not as critical to _me_ than it can be for folks in critical |
| 30 |
enterprise environments, but of course, they do most certainly need it. |
| 31 |
I am not to decide whether this should be added to portage or not. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
etnoY |
Archives