Hi Sune, Thankyou for the answer, after a quick search it is indeed the "GLEP 19" that satisfied my query. I also found the answer to my other question:
"All ebuilds should remain in the tree for a minimum of one year. This allows users to upgrade as infrequently as once per year without risking the stable portage tree leaving them behind without an upgrade path." It's truly unfortunate that that particular effort has lost momentum. Could i trouble you to point me to some more specific discourse regarding the stable portage tree? I wish i could offer my help but I'm afraid i don't have enough of an understanding of the depths of Portage to be of any great use... Cheers Phil On Thursday 22 September 2005 23:41, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On Thursday 22 September 2005 12:00, Phillip Berry wrote: > > Just wondering if there has been any progress on the stable portage tree? > > If you're thinking about GLEP 19 nothing much has been accomplished for > quite a few months now. I think all involved parties have too much to do > already. > > > Also, syncing the normal tree removes old versions of ebuilds, obviously > > this is inappropriate for a production environment where for various > > reasons it is sometimes neccessary to stay at an arbitrary version of an > > application. The loss of the ebuild specific to the legacy version of > > the application is a pain, will the stable tree retain older versions of > > ebuilds instead of removing them? > > You could keep them in your own portage (overlay) tree and only sync with > the official as necessary. > > > Also, will security updates ever be backported? > > If manpower permits, but with the current manpower situation I think it is > unlikely. > > > As is i said, i'm just wondering... > > -- > Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen (Jaervosz) > Gentoo Linux Security Team -- [email protected] mailing list
