Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
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... I would like to see portage based upon a CVS repository in much the way FreeBSD port collection is. It would be nice to be able to go back to a snapshot from 1 year ago if need be. How this would be implmeneted with portage in front of it, I am uncertain, but that would be a nice goal IMHO. Tom Veldhouse -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
> > > One of the biggest differences I can think of between a source-based > > > distro (such as Gentoo) and a binary-package based one is that you rarely > > > have library dependency issues. If you compile a newer package against an > > > older library, it will usually still work, and vice versa. If a library > > > is upgraded, you don't need to upgrade the packages that depend on it, > > > just recompile if necessary. > > > > I did find one instance where this is not true. At one point when > > upgrading qt on my system, emerging any kde app failed. I need to > > recompile kdelibs to be able to compile a kde app > > I guess that breaks down when you have a library that depends on another > library. I think that's what revdep-rebuild is for. But upgrading qt > didn't cause existing KDE apps to stop working, it just kept you from > being able to compile KDE apps, correct? Yes, all the kde apps worked fine. I didn't know about revdep-rebuild back when it happened, but I guess it would have caught the problem Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Tom Hosiawa wrote: > > One of the biggest differences I can think of between a source-based > > distro (such as Gentoo) and a binary-package based one is that you rarely > > have library dependency issues. If you compile a newer package against an > > older library, it will usually still work, and vice versa. If a library > > is upgraded, you don't need to upgrade the packages that depend on it, > > just recompile if necessary. > > I did find one instance where this is not true. At one point when > upgrading qt on my system, emerging any kde app failed. I need to > recompile kdelibs to be able to compile a kde app I guess that breaks down when you have a library that depends on another library. I think that's what revdep-rebuild is for. But upgrading qt didn't cause existing KDE apps to stop working, it just kept you from being able to compile KDE apps, correct? -- CAUTION: Product will be hot after heating -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
> One of the biggest differences I can think of between a source-based > distro (such as Gentoo) and a binary-package based one is that you rarely > have library dependency issues. If you compile a newer package against an > older library, it will usually still work, and vice versa. If a library > is upgraded, you don't need to upgrade the packages that depend on it, > just recompile if necessary. I did find one instance where this is not true. At one point when upgrading qt on my system, emerging any kde app failed. I need to recompile kdelibs to be able to compile a kde app I filed a bug report about it, but someone said portage doesn't support automatically making kdelibs recompile after upgrading qt. Would this be a possible feature of portage-ng, re-emerging an app when needed? Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Jeff Smelser wrote: > This handles different versions and where each one is progressing, I just hope > they start realizing they can't delete and ebuild just because they are 2-3 > versions past it or the like. I got caught on that with wget. I upgraded, > later that week, I decided to do a emerge -e, and it broke because the wget > version I had was gone.. > > Never did figure out why they deleted the damn thing. One thing I've noticed is that if you want rsync to delete "outdated" (no longer on server) files, you must specifically pass it --delete options. This is hard-coded into emerge right now, but could, of course, be easily edited to never delete old ebuilds. (Upgrades to portage will overwrite this, of course.) Presumably, the new portage will let this be an option, or create a list of files to exclude from deletion consisting of all the currently installed package, or something similar to that. Admins can also easily create ebuilds which only add a security patch, rather than getting an entire new version. One of the biggest differences I can think of between a source-based distro (such as Gentoo) and a binary-package based one is that you rarely have library dependency issues. If you compile a newer package against an older library, it will usually still work, and vice versa. If a library is upgraded, you don't need to upgrade the packages that depend on it, just recompile if necessary. -- CAUTION: Product will be hot after heating -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[Fwd: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.]
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
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
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 -- It is vital to remember that information is not knowledge; that knowledge is not wisdom; and that wisdom is not foresight. - Arthur C Clarke -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 07 December 2003 04:08 pm, 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. This handles different versions and where each one is progressing, I just hope they start realizing they can't delete and ebuild just because they are 2-3 versions past it or the like. I got caught on that with wget. I upgraded, later that week, I decided to do a emerge -e, and it broke because the wget version I had was gone.. Never did figure out why they deleted the damn thing. - -- Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/07Mkld4MRA3gEwYRAj4xAJ4zUBypaR1n+oWlAE+CiKOgJ1fgEgCeOI2D MxT+WE/l2CctpI2Gv6fTe1c= =OO7r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 07 December 2003 03:56 pm, rd wrote: > Jeff - > > I agree with you. I only like to update my 3 systems a few times each > year -- the regression testing is *way* too much work. > > Ever try "revdep-build" just to see how much trouble you are really in? My systems are updated every Saturday.. I gives me two days to see how things are running... I don't actually have a production type system.. I just been around long enough to know how they do things. DBA's are normally very close to the people who run their boxes.. I know how they like to have our boxes.. - -- Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/07GOld4MRA3gEwYRAk3sAKC9WGVl8uJSYM/CvYx7TzSxQSIOEgCcCAHm 9ApFYJCKvaLNf35UYDGuGpg= =FZb5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 20:26, Jeff Smelser wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sunday 07 December 2003 01:56 pm, Eric Paynter wrote: > > Nobody said they have to apply every change. You really only need to > > apply the security patches. As for the rest, read the changelog and > > see if there is any benefit to updating - often there isn't. I've > > seen a lot of packages go from, for example, version-x-r3 to > > version-x-r4 and the only change in the changelog is "marked stable > > on platform y", when it's not even installed on platform y. So it's > > just a recompile for nothing. > > Your right, you don't.. But lets says package A comes out with a security fix. > After this box has been up for year, most of this stuff the server has, is > probably gone. Hell, 6 months is a long time in gentoo world. He tries to > update and it says he has to upgrade 50 others because gentoo has grown since > then.. Why should he have to upgrade the 50 others?? Do a one shot or nodeps > you say? Then your taking a chance the ebuild/build process will fail due to > the fact the other packages are 'old'.. > > Its not as that far off, since it happened to people running gentoo. The > gentoo tree it highly depended on you keeping up with it.. > 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 Wesley signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
Jeff - I agree with you. I only like to update my 3 systems a few times each year -- the regression testing is *way* too much work. Ever try "revdep-build" just to see how much trouble you are really in? -rdg On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 14:26, Jeff Smelser wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sunday 07 December 2003 01:56 pm, Eric Paynter wrote: > > Nobody said they have to apply every change. You really only need to > > apply the security patches. As for the rest, read the changelog and > > see if there is any benefit to updating - often there isn't. I've > > seen a lot of packages go from, for example, version-x-r3 to > > version-x-r4 and the only change in the changelog is "marked stable > > on platform y", when it's not even installed on platform y. So it's > > just a recompile for nothing. > > Your right, you don't.. But lets says package A comes out with a security fix. > After this box has been up for year, most of this stuff the server has, is > probably gone. Hell, 6 months is a long time in gentoo world. He tries to > update and it says he has to upgrade 50 others because gentoo has grown since > then.. Why should he have to upgrade the 50 others?? Do a one shot or nodeps > you say? Then your taking a chance the ebuild/build process will fail due to > the fact the other packages are 'old'.. > > Its not as that far off, since it happened to people running gentoo. The > gentoo tree it highly depended on you keeping up with it.. > > - -- > It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE/040Rld4MRA3gEwYRAoqYAJ9zd32UZqqbNegdpBhQxYBnBnHAiACghz8S > M3iVC0zN88wmL6zZQtuTs1Q= > =RAKt > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- It is vital to remember that information is not knowledge; that knowledge is not wisdom; and that wisdom is not foresight. - Arthur C Clarke -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 07 December 2003 01:56 pm, Eric Paynter wrote: > Nobody said they have to apply every change. You really only need to > apply the security patches. As for the rest, read the changelog and > see if there is any benefit to updating - often there isn't. I've > seen a lot of packages go from, for example, version-x-r3 to > version-x-r4 and the only change in the changelog is "marked stable > on platform y", when it's not even installed on platform y. So it's > just a recompile for nothing. Your right, you don't.. But lets says package A comes out with a security fix. After this box has been up for year, most of this stuff the server has, is probably gone. Hell, 6 months is a long time in gentoo world. He tries to update and it says he has to upgrade 50 others because gentoo has grown since then.. Why should he have to upgrade the 50 others?? Do a one shot or nodeps you say? Then your taking a chance the ebuild/build process will fail due to the fact the other packages are 'old'.. Its not as that far off, since it happened to people running gentoo. The gentoo tree it highly depended on you keeping up with it.. - -- It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/040Rld4MRA3gEwYRAoqYAJ9zd32UZqqbNegdpBhQxYBnBnHAiACghz8S M3iVC0zN88wmL6zZQtuTs1Q= =RAKt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
> It really erritates them when the devs delete a package because > they are, so called, 3-5 versions up. They only like upgrading > every do often. Hell, most of them have a hard time keeping up > with windows security updates, how can they handle a distro like > this? Nobody said they have to apply every change. You really only need to apply the security patches. As for the rest, read the changelog and see if there is any benefit to updating - often there isn't. I've seen a lot of packages go from, for example, version-x-r3 to version-x-r4 and the only change in the changelog is "marked stable on platform y", when it's not even installed on platform y. So it's just a recompile for nothing. -Eric -- arctic bears - email and name services 25 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] CA$11.95/month DNS starting at CA$3.49/month - domains from CA$25.95/year for details contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://www.arcticbears.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
For me, the problem w/ gentoo as corp production is this -- Everytime I update a package, I must run a full system/application regression test -- to be certain that *everything* still works. This is a *major* undertaking -- at least 2 days of full time effort. What I really need to be able to do, is apply security patches ONLY for 3 or 6 months -- then do the update world and regression testing. For this to work, it is important that all other package source is still available in case I need to do a "revdep-build". -rdg On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 11:23, Jeff Smelser wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sunday 07 December 2003 10:35 am, collins wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:07, Eric Paynter wrote: > > > brett holcomb said: > > > >>This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews > > > >>article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 > > > >> > > > >>"Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. > > > > Wrong!!! It's only bleeding edge if you choose the non-stable branch. > > Thats really depends on how you define bleeding edge.. Gentoo, in the corp > world, defines it as so since the packages are always changing.. Thats why > people have a hard time using it in the corp world when the packages are > always shifting around. > > It really erritates them when the devs delete a package because they are, so > called, 3-5 versions up. They only like upgrading every do often. Hell, most > of them have a hard time keeping up with windows security updates, how can > they handle a distro like this? > > Jeff > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE/02Ivld4MRA3gEwYRAuoVAJ0ZVqg3RiYYDj9ccRDRBDi+rdTtKgCg3Gue > U9V9kJX2F6t8rLAbSgDQkng= > =sqaj > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- It is vital to remember that information is not knowledge; that knowledge is not wisdom; and that wisdom is not foresight. - Arthur C Clarke -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 07 December 2003 10:35 am, collins wrote: > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:07, Eric Paynter wrote: > > brett holcomb said: > > >>This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews > > >>article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 > > >> > > >>"Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. > > Wrong!!! It's only bleeding edge if you choose the non-stable branch. Thats really depends on how you define bleeding edge.. Gentoo, in the corp world, defines it as so since the packages are always changing.. Thats why people have a hard time using it in the corp world when the packages are always shifting around. It really erritates them when the devs delete a package because they are, so called, 3-5 versions up. They only like upgrading every do often. Hell, most of them have a hard time keeping up with windows security updates, how can they handle a distro like this? Jeff -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/02Ivld4MRA3gEwYRAuoVAJ0ZVqg3RiYYDj9ccRDRBDi+rdTtKgCg3Gue U9V9kJX2F6t8rLAbSgDQkng= =sqaj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:07, Eric Paynter wrote: > brett holcomb said: > >>This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews > >>article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 > >> > >>"Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. Wrong!!! It's only bleeding edge if you choose the non-stable branch. > I thought if you wanted "bleeding edge" you used ~ARCH in your > make.conf. For those of us who like to *use* our machines rather > than play with then, no "~" means you can expect things to be as > stable as any other production-quality system. Is that not the case? Exactly! I don't use ~x86 except for a very few things, and my machine is and has been and will be rock solid. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area Gentoo stable -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
Hmm, I didn't say this - Mr. Simpson did. However, yes, ~ means it's unstable for various reasons (ebuild not tested, app is unstable, etc.) so those of us who need to run use no ~arch. The no ~arch is stable stuff and Gentoo seems to be pretty conservative in what they recommmend. On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:07:54 -0800 (PST) "Eric Paynter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: brett holcomb said: This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 "Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. It makes Gentoo Linux the ideal distribution for hobbyists who get lots of cool toys before everyone else, but makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production server environments," [...] Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the current 1.4 release in a production server environment? Thanks, Brett I thought if you wanted "bleeding edge" you used ~ARCH in your make.conf. For those of us who like to *use* our machines rather than play with then, no "~" means you can expect things to be as stable as any other production-quality system. Is that not the case? -Eric -- arctic bears - email and name services 25 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] CA$11.95/month DNS starting at CA$3.49/month - domains from CA$25.95/year for details contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://www.arcticbears.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
brett holcomb said: >>This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews >>article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 >> >>"Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. >>It makes Gentoo Linux the ideal distribution for >>hobbyists who get lots of cool toys before everyone else, >>but makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for >>production server environments," [...] >Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is >this for the current 1.4 release in a production server >environment? > >Thanks, >Brett I thought if you wanted "bleeding edge" you used ~ARCH in your make.conf. For those of us who like to *use* our machines rather than play with then, no "~" means you can expect things to be as stable as any other production-quality system. Is that not the case? -Eric -- arctic bears - email and name services 25 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] CA$11.95/month DNS starting at CA$3.49/month - domains from CA$25.95/year for details contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit http://www.arcticbears.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
brett holcomb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) schrieb am 05.12.2003 21:50 Uhr: >> Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is >> this for the current 1.4 release in a production server >> environment? I'm running Gentoo on production servers on the internet for more than 18 months now, and find it far superior to both Suse and Redhat distros. IMHO most production environment is to keep track of important patches to both system and server software. Gentoo is the appropriate tool for this. Regards, - Christian -- Christian Aust mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] icq: 84500990 - Yahoo!: datenimperator - MSN: datenimperator PGP: A94E 0181 664D 27E3 F05A A751 6A7E 90D1 A0A3 DEC7 For those with an eye for the finer details, we salute you. - FGTH, Welcome to the pleasuredome -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 14:38:15 -0500 "Brett Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews article. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080 "Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. It makes Gentoo Linux the ideal distribution for hobbyists who get lots of cool toys before everyone else, but makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production server environments," "We're going to take pieces of the current "bleeding-edge" Gentoo Linux meta-distribution, refined them and use them as the basis for a robust, well-maintained version of Gentoo Linux -- geared exclusively for servers. For this project, we will reduce the number of ebuilds in our server branch from 1800 to around 400, at least initially. Our stable CVS tree will be completely separate from our current bleeding-edge version -- a "code firewall", if you will. Commit access will be limited to an elite team of Gentoo Linux developers. We will lock down upgrades so that "emerge --update world" will only fix known bugs and security fixes. Each release of this new server meta-distribution will have an official one-year lifespan, during which it will be painstakingly maintained by us. In-place upgrades to new releases will be fully-tested and very smooth. We will have some cross-pollination with our current tree, but anything that goes into the server distro will be carefully audited before being added. We are still developing the goals for our new server project, but based on feedback from the rest of our development team (who seem to be in near unanimous agreement) it looks like the project will progress very closely if not identically to how it is described above." Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the current 1.4 release in a production server environment? Thanks, Brett -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
