Hi Toby, Nachricht vom Donnerstag, 3. April 2003, 00:59:13:
> On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:00 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I do not do nightly upgrades into 2003-spring, I keep that frozen (and >> merge in security fixes by adding those ebuilds, digest files, and >> meta-data caches by hand). That sounds a bit like that "gentoo-stable"-project... testing things, the choosing by hand what to do. Isn't it possible to do that in larger scale? I read more than once in this threat that people are building their own production-sets of ebuilds. Isn't that a bit against the philosophy of gentoo? I don't want to start a (flame-)war over this, but you should get where I am going... Just a starting point for discussion.... > I am doing the same thing for our gentoo servers, with one variation. I try to > keep the stapshot completely clean, and add updates using PORTDIR_OVERLAY. > So far this has been very stable for us, and I am very pleased with the > arrangement. I am about to migrate our last few redhat servers over the next > few weeks. > So far there has only been one problem.... The ebuild for a recent openssl > update needed a more recent portage than we had been using, the updated > portage needed a newer bash, and the updated bash ebuild also needed a newer > portage. deadlock! Can't portage resolve such deadlocks? IMHO it should do... update portage to something older, then update bash, portage, openssl... > We have now adopted a policy of updating portage every 8 weeks, > even on the stable servers, even when we dont think we need an update. Timo -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
