| 1 |
On Monday 25 December 2006 04:48, "Andrey Gerasimenko" <gak@××××××.ru> |
| 2 |
wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?': |
| 3 |
> You want to update world and, at the same time, not to update anything. |
| 4 |
> I can understand that if your goal is not to "update world", as Portage |
| 5 |
> thinks when you say "-u world", but to install only bug and sequrity |
| 6 |
> fixes, as Portage does if you mask pakeges properly. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, if you put some work into defining exactly what package versions |
| 9 |
would want installed. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> As far as I |
| 12 |
> remember, according to this list some work to treat sequrity updates |
| 13 |
> differently is under way. As for bug fixes, I do not see how they can be |
| 14 |
> separated from features. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
glsa-check from gentoolkit(?) should tell you exactly what packages to |
| 17 |
mask/upgrade to get security fixes, while bug fixes are currently handled |
| 18 |
exactly the same way a feature additions (generally upstream doesn't |
| 19 |
differentiate between these two changes either -- sometimes the y in x.y.z |
| 20 |
is for feature additions (with the z for bug fixes) but this isn't really |
| 21 |
consistent). Gentoo-specific bug fixes are either an in-place change to |
| 22 |
the ebuild (no version bump) or a bump of the revision (-r1) number, which |
| 23 |
is independent of upstream (and should nearly universally be installed). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
| 27 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
| 28 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
| 29 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives