Since People seem to like the idea, is there any chance of developing along this line of thought?
-----Forwarded Message----- From: rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: gentoo-user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers. Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 17:16:40 -0600 On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 16:08, Tom Wesley wrote: > I think that there is a high degree of probability that > portage-ng(-ng(-ng)) ;) will include some form of tree selection. I > personally would like to see something like this. Either pointing to a > completely different rsync server set, or having a extended set of > architecture definitions. I prefer the latter, as in x86-server, > ~x86-server, x86-desktop, x86-testing and the like. Security updates > would of course need to penetrate all types here. Maybe ~x86 and x86 > simply isn't enough of a split between what is stable and what isn't > anymore, especially because enterprise server people are looking at > Gentoo. > > Just my 2p... Tom -- I think that this is a good approach. It would surely work for me. Have you been following portage-ng-ng-ng? Is this idea being consider? Have you sent this to the portage-dev list? Would you.... -rdg -- Tom Wesley
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
