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
> archite
> > > 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
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 us
> 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
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 de
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 De
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 havi
-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
-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
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 changel
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--
-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 ther
> 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
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 d
-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
> > >>
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 choos
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
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 e
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
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
hob
20 matches
Mail list logo
