| 1 |
Mike Myers wrote: |
| 2 |
> I understand what you say, but I'm not sure I got my point across very |
| 3 |
> well. Let's say I have a server that has various things installed |
| 4 |
> like apache with the 2.0 branch, mysql with the 4.0 branch, and PHP |
| 5 |
> with the 4.x branch. If I do an emerge -u world on a machine with |
| 6 |
> these, at some random point in time when the devs decide the newer |
| 7 |
> branch is stable, then any one of these will be upgraded to the next |
| 8 |
> branch. What I am asking, is why wouldn't it be better to have it |
| 9 |
> where I will only stay on the current branch for that profile, and |
| 10 |
> only move to the next branch when I change the profile? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Then you can mask them in package.mask and then it won't upgrade the |
| 13 |
ones you don't want to upgrade. When you get ready to upgrade, just |
| 14 |
comment the lines in the file and upgrade. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Like, say I have the 2005 profile, then I wouldn't have to worry about |
| 17 |
> PHP upgrading to 5.0 or randomly requiring some virtual ebuild or |
| 18 |
> whatever else is decided to be thrown our way. I would just have to |
| 19 |
> worry about updating the 4.x branch at least until the devs decide to |
| 20 |
> stop supporting it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I think another advantage to using this method would be that it would |
| 23 |
> make it easier to transition from an application that has a monolithic |
| 24 |
> ebuild to suddenly having a modular ebuild, or a virtual ebuild. At |
| 25 |
> least this way, we wouldn't have to worry about fundamental things |
| 26 |
> changing on us during an update until we change the profile and can |
| 27 |
> expect these kinds of changes and can deal with them at a more |
| 28 |
> convenient time instead of when the devs decide it's time to for us. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Does that make any sense? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Well, I remember xorg going modular too. I read that some were having |
| 35 |
problems and I just masked it for a few weeks, then upgraded after it |
| 36 |
all got sorted out. It worked fine for me. I had no problems after that. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
All this said, it is rare that I have trouble doing a upgrade. Most of |
| 39 |
my problems come in when I am using something that is masked or |
| 40 |
keyworded. Then you can expect to have those though. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
There are ways to do what you want, it just seems to defeat the purpose |
| 43 |
of having Gentoo in my opinion. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Dale |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
:-) :-) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
www.myspace.com/dalek1967 |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives