| 1 |
Oh, nice! Thanks for that info! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
BTW, I was only referring to the profiles since it was the closest thing to |
| 4 |
'releases' that Gentoo has. Whatever tool used to do it would be arbitrary |
| 5 |
as long as it worked. Although, wouldn't it be easier to just mask major |
| 6 |
updates in the profile? Like say >=application-4.1 when the profile is |
| 7 |
using 3.0? That way the smaller updates for 'application 3.0' could get |
| 8 |
through. This is assuming that a specific tree version is being used I |
| 9 |
guess, but why would that be so hard? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
On 12/25/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> On 12/24/06, Mike Myers <fluffymikey@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 14 |
> > Please tell me there's some solution to this? I haven't seen one |
| 15 |
> mentioned |
| 16 |
> > anywhere yet. Even with Gentoo's occasional problems, I like it too |
| 17 |
> much to |
| 18 |
> > use any other distro but I'd definitely like to see better version |
| 19 |
> > management than what its got, which is none. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The ideal solution to this would be released tree versions...so you |
| 22 |
> could use the 2006.1 tree instead of the live development tree. Note |
| 23 |
> that profiles wouldn't help much here, as then the profile would have |
| 24 |
> to contain a list of all the possible packages that can be installed |
| 25 |
> with the relevant versions. And it creates a lot of complications for |
| 26 |
> package removals, additions, etc. But to have a snapshot of the tree |
| 27 |
> to which only security or other minor fixes would be applied would be |
| 28 |
> ideal for the problem you describe. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The usual argument against this is that most devs prefer working on |
| 31 |
> the live tree. Having to maintain a released tree and backport fixes |
| 32 |
> to it would take time away from things they would rather be doing |
| 33 |
> (like working on new cool stuff). The fear is that the released trees |
| 34 |
> could have serious security holes in them that might never get fixed. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> But in fact this has been discussed many times among devs. For the |
| 37 |
> most recent discussion, search the gentoo-dev mail list archives for |
| 38 |
> "Versioning the tree" (and ignore the flames). I haven't reviewed the |
| 39 |
> discussion, but as I recall a couple of devs may be working on making |
| 40 |
> this a reality, possibly for the 2007.X releases. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> -Richard |
| 43 |
> -- |
| 44 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
Archives