| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:03:34 -0000 "Nelson, David (ED, PAR&D)" |
| 4 |
<David.Nelson2@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Has the idea of distributing custom package.mask files |
| 7 |
> occured? This way you can "mask off" certain versions of software and |
| 8 |
> hence limit updates to minor changes. You can then use these on |
| 9 |
> systems you want to keep as stable as possible, use a test machine to |
| 10 |
> test changes to the package.mask and then roll it out. Might make |
| 11 |
> management of many workstations/servers easier. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Naah, it wouldn't work by itself. You would still have to have a |
| 14 |
"trusted state" portage tree in order to make sure what's _not_ masked. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's far easier to replicate a known-state portage tree. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Alternatively incorporating a custom package.mask into a custom boot |
| 19 |
> CD could provide the basis of a Gentoo-derived custom distro? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I use the word "custom" too much. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, that's the outcome of this thread, I think. It's all about |
| 24 |
customization. Customization that makes a streamlined distro impossible |
| 25 |
to use for majority of Gentoo's users. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-hwh |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives