1 |
Thanks for the responses everybody! |
2 |
|
3 |
Boyd, if this is just not feasible in Gentoo for whatever reason, then I |
4 |
guess I might switch. I understand the portage system enough to mask the |
5 |
packages I don't want, but then there's the problem of other updates |
6 |
requiring that package. |
7 |
|
8 |
Ultimately, messing with portage is decent for a single system, but it |
9 |
doesn't scale very well at all. Managing all these different versions of |
10 |
the same software on different machines running the same OS can get |
11 |
ridiculously time consuming, especially if they've gone a while without |
12 |
updates. I know there are ways to better manage that, but those ways don't |
13 |
work when the systems are at different locations and can't be centrally |
14 |
managed. |
15 |
|
16 |
Anyways, all I'm essentially asking for is a way to separate minor updates |
17 |
from major updates. I don't understand why this sort of update management |
18 |
is 'unusable'. If I let a system go without updates for say, a month, then |
19 |
do a sync, then now I have like 200 things that need updated. Some are |
20 |
minor, like say, firefox-2.0-r1 to firefox-2.0-r2. Then there are more |
21 |
major ones like baselayout which almost completely changes how networking |
22 |
and udev scripts work. The way it is now, all these updates are lumped |
23 |
together like one big update. These kinds of updates in a short span of |
24 |
time can be rough. Especially when these new updates require config |
25 |
changes, instead of just using the old config. Like when Apache's install |
26 |
was changed completely without any real warning. It was just tossed in |
27 |
there as an update, right there with gvim. How am I supposed to know what |
28 |
is and isn't going to get smashed? I mean, sure I can wait a while and look |
29 |
at the forums and see other people having problems and then wait.. but why |
30 |
should we allow these problems to be there in the first place? |
31 |
|
32 |
As for switching, I might if better update management is truly considered |
33 |
'unusable'. (???) I just want a usable system, and I'd prefer it to be |
34 |
Gentoo. |
35 |
|
36 |
On 12/25/06, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03@××××××××××.net> wrote: |
37 |
> |
38 |
> On Monday 25 December 2006 02:46, "Mike Myers" <fluffymikey@×××××.com> |
39 |
> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?': |
40 |
> > I understand what you say, but I'm not sure I got my point across very |
41 |
> > well. Let's say I have a server that has various things installed like |
42 |
> > apache with the 2.0 branch, mysql with the 4.0 branch, and PHP with |
43 |
> > the 4.xbranch. If I do an emerge -u world on a machine with these, at |
44 |
> > some random |
45 |
> > point in time when the devs decide the newer branch is stable, then any |
46 |
> > one of these will be upgraded to the next branch. What I am asking, is |
47 |
> > why wouldn't it be better to have it where I will only stay on the |
48 |
> > current branch for that profile, and only move to the next branch when I |
49 |
> > change the profile? |
50 |
> |
51 |
> I would say... Move to Debian. Gentoo dosen't have fixed branches (we |
52 |
> have |
53 |
> a live tree) even profiles don't fix much, generally minimal (not maximal) |
54 |
> version numbers. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Debian, will make sure that upgrades to your (e.g.) sarge mysql package |
57 |
> are |
58 |
> either ABI compatible, or tied to other upgrades that move the ABI all at |
59 |
> the same time. This generally make Debian (and to a lesser extent Ubuntu) |
60 |
> quite stable once installed. Gentoo is.... different. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> By default, Gentoo marks packages as working ("stable"), testing |
63 |
> ("~arch"), |
64 |
> or non-working ("masked by package.mask") and lets the user control the |
65 |
> version(s) they want to use on their specific system (rather than |
66 |
> being "attached" to a profile) with the local /etc/portage/package.mask |
67 |
> (and package.keywords and package.unmask etc.). |
68 |
> |
69 |
> If you decide that mysql 4 is what you want to stick with as long as |
70 |
> gentoo |
71 |
> will support it, there stick something like '>category/mysql-4*' |
72 |
> or '>=category/mysql-5*' into your package.mask. emerge will then stop |
73 |
> whenever it wants newer mysql. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> -- |
76 |
> "If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
77 |
> it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
78 |
> clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
79 |
> -- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |
80 |
> |
81 |
> |
82 |
> |