On 08/16/06 Jan Meier wrote: > I am using glsa-check for reporting vulnerable software, currently > not for updating. I will give "emerge imagemagick" a shot, maybe that > has less dependencies :) . With your answeres in mind I came to the > opinion that there is not a real need for a "stable portage tree".
I personally think there is a a large need for a stable tree. I run 10s of servers, and I'm sure there's people on this list who run many more. Updating every 6/12 months is fine in principle, but it means going though 10's of machines updating config files and resolving conflics. This is a painful task, it's fine for 1 machine, it's fine for 5... but you have any real number of servers to maintain and it ends up taking hours or days to upgrade your servers. A stable tree that has an update cycle of something like 6 months and perhaps a security overlay (implement as an overlay perhaps to reduce the sync time and therefore resources) would be idea - then upgrading between 'releases' could be well documented and coordinated. Unfortunatly, this is a huge project - and without a small/medium team of dedicated gentoo devs, it's not going to happen. -- Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
