On 26/02/2011 15:57, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Ed Wli...@wildgooses.com schrieb:
I'm just building some embedded devices on the side using
gentoo and my minimal builds are only a few MB?
How to do you get out all the buildtime stuff (portage, toolchain, etc) ?
Seems like your complaint is
Hi
But, for me, even a trimmed-down Gentoo is still too large
(has to contain the whole base packages, from portage to
toolchain, includes, etc). I'd prefer having only the essential
runtime stuff within the containers.
I'm just building some embedded devices on the side using gentoo and my
* Ed W li...@wildgooses.com schrieb:
I'm just building some embedded devices on the side using
gentoo and my minimal builds are only a few MB?
How to do you get out all the buildtime stuff (portage, toolchain, etc) ?
Seems like your complaint is that you have gentoo installs which are
On 21/02/2011 00:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Markos Chandrashwoar...@gentoo.org schrieb:
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you
need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise )
for a couple of
All,
Perhaps this is an argument for a git based portage tree? Master can
stay as the current status quo and anyone who wants to can maintain a
branch or fork which points to a slightly different subset of the tree?
I'm starting to put together a portage/stable server configuration for a
Hi
I'm starting to put together a portage/stable server configuration for a large
number of gentoo VM's that will eventually be hosted on a VMware ESX 4.1U1
cluster - with the goal of limiting major changes to once/year and otherwise
only applying security/minimum necessary updates. I doubt it
* Ed W li...@wildgooses.com schrieb:
I maintain a, likely much smaller, number of VMs using linux vservers.
The approach here is to almost cut each machine down to a chroot that
runs only one (or thereabouts) interesting service.
I'm working in a similar way: my dedicated boxes are VM
* Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org schrieb:
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you
need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise )
for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable
* Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org schrieb:
Hmmm, odd. I experience amd64 (stable) as being pretty stable on my
servers. Last breakage which really got me upset was php, but that's
already some time ago.
the ini file issue ?
With Gentoo you should update on fairly regular intervals, and
* Pawe?? Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org schrieb:
By the way, to turn this thread into some action: what testing do we
currently perform for auto-generated stages? It'd be cool to at least
compile-test that the stage can emerge -e world itself, and emerge
some common packages (with
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08-02-2011 18:46:32 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they
have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag
stabilization by a
On 2/9/11 2:57 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Perhaps we should target having glsas published within a certain
amount of time after a vulnerability is disclosed, whether corrected
or not. We could re-publish a final notice once all is well. We
really shouldn't consider users safe from a security
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml
specifies the target delay, and also mentions temporary GLSAs.
Unfortunately, that process does not seem to be followed due to general
difficulty of
On 10:26 Wed 09 Feb , Rich Freeman wrote:
I have heard similar complaints about GLSAmaker. I half-wonder if it
would make more sense to just edit the xml files directly and validate
them with a tool, and send out an email, if the tool really is that
bad.
If this is really the problem,
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:26:19AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
I have heard similar complaints about GLSAmaker. I half-wonder if it
would make more sense to just edit the xml files directly and validate
them with a tool, and send out an email, if the tool really is that
bad.
a3li has been
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 2/7/11 9:50 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to
stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile
On 2/8/11 9:24 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:02:36PM +0100, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
There are machines available for various arches at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml. I have
at least a few chromium-related chroots on miranda, and I've
On 2011.02.07 20:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to
stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple
of weeks and then replace the existing
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:43:33AM +, Roy Bamford wrote:
On 2011.02.07 20:50, Markos Chandras wrote:
[snip]
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to
stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least
On 08-02-2011 12:03:48 +, Markos Chandras wrote:
I see what you are saying. However, the 6 months testing is far from
what I have in mind. My only intention is to bring a more stable
experience to our users. Or, stop claiming that our stable tree rocks
and Gentoo is perfect for servers
tl;dr - can we add more automated tests to auto-generated stages?
On 2/8/11 1:22 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
Hmmm, odd. I experience amd64 (stable) as being pretty stable on my
servers. Last breakage which really got me upset was php, but
that's already some time ago.
Makes sense. Most of
Markos,
A few thoughts inlined.
On 2011.02.08 12:03, Markos Chandras wrote:
My main point was that as you move from an old dated set of packages to
newer packages which by definition are less well tested, stability
decreases. Users pick somewhere between the two extremes that they are
happy
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
I see what you are saying. However, the 6 months testing is far from
what I have in mind.
I could see there being room for something in-between, but I share the
concerns of others that rolling releases are part of what
On 13:22 Tue 08 Feb , Fabian Groffen wrote:
With Gentoo you should update on fairly regular intervals, and have
the time inbetween as short as possible, but 2 or 3 weeks appears to
be fine. I myself have a cronjob that syncs every night, and mails me
the output of emerge -Dupv world.
On Feb 8, 2011 11:44 AM, Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
(With exceptions for security issues.)
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they
have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag
stabilization by a considerable timeframe.
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they
have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag
stabilization by a considerable timeframe.
Yep. GLSA is something that seems to happen roughly one year after no affected
package is in tree anymore.
On 08-02-2011 18:46:32 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they
have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag
stabilization by a considerable timeframe.
Yep. GLSA is something that seems to happen
On Tuesday 08 February 2011 18:57:20 Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 08-02-2011 18:46:32 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that they
have a package pending a security update? It seems like glsa's lag
stabilization by a
On 12:37 Tue 08 Feb , Rich Freeman wrote:
On Feb 8, 2011 11:44 AM, Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
(With exceptions for security issues.)
Other than monitoring bugzilla, how does a Gentoo user even know that
they have a package pending a security update? It seems like
On 02/07/2011 06:19 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
From time to time there are stabilization bugs where the current stable
is broken. For example, https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353487
However, in theory that should not happen, because presumably the
current stable has been tested in
El lun, 07-02-2011 a las 18:43 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 02/07/2011 06:19 PM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
From time to time there are stabilization bugs where the current stable
is broken. For example, https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353487
However, in theory that should
We've been discussing this @FOSDEM too. My suggestion was that any bug that
visibly hurts stable users should always be considered at least MAJOR in
bugzilla.
To expand on this a bit more
* a stable update that makes the computer nonfunctional is definitely BLOCKER
(and should be reverted in
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 06:45:10PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
We've been discussing this @FOSDEM too. My suggestion was that any bug that
visibly hurts stable users should always be considered at least MAJOR in
bugzilla.
To expand on this a bit more
* a stable update that makes
On 2/7/11 9:50 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a
snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you need to
stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) for a couple of
weeks and then replace the existing stable tree.
34 matches
Mail list logo
