On 06/23/14 04:24 PM, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
On 06/23/2014 17:09, Jonathan Adams wrote:
Just out of interest, if illumos-gate was rebuilt every night, does that
mean that we get a complete (Gb sized) update every day, or is it clever
enough to only try to package files that have changed?
No, it's not clever enough. And currently each illumos-gate rebuild
publishes packages even if nothing has changed. So yes, it can be a
problem. I have a patch to make illumos-gate component more sane. But
I'd like to commit simultaneously with switching /usr/perl5/bin/perl
to perl 5.16.
Maybe it should be also clever to have some kind of versions of Hipster
as we get along,
meaning 'entire' version or something,
that could let one update to exact version, to pinpoint exact point in
time, when some package or packages are broken because of other packages
updated?
And to see if some updated package can work with older release version
to see if that changed package fixes things.
I don't understand how one can figure out what update breaks things, if
there is no way of getting back to exact state before update of some
package.
Rolling release have it's meaning I suppose, but why not have it versioned?
Will rebuilding it every night mean that we need to rotate the
repository
more frequently in future to stop PKG getting too big?
I think we can rebuild it every night if there are updates to
illumos-gate.
I think that was once discussed on IRC and that is actually a plan. to
switch repositories as they get too big...
I am not sure how that practice will get along with old Solaris practice
of having long binary compatibility with releases, it more sounds what
Linux distributions are doing,
not expecting anything is stable between kernel releases.
It seems it is echo of illumos only now thinking of having actual
release numbers...
Have illumos made it release numbers policy yet?
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
