From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3621 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 20:28:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Jul 2004 20:28:35 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BgUeA-0008CB-PN for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:28:34 +0000 Received: (qmail 10455 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2004 20:28:09 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 27266 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2004 20:28:08 +0000 From: Chris Gianelloni Reply-To: wolf31o2@gentoo.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200407021115.11869.absinthe@gentoo.org> References: <40E4B84B.1040501@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <1088775875.12020.127.camel@rattus.Localdomain> <20040702144117.GA11463@violet.grantgoodyear.org> <200407021115.11869.absinthe@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kWx80krQ/F94qluEPOMH" Organization: Gentoo Linux Message-Id: <1088800186.9277.44.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:29:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' X-Archives-Salt: 0bcdeee4-2136-4e16-8489-9e0cb672e55e X-Archives-Hash: d153faa7f8133139f2c79c2292de65f2 --=-kWx80krQ/F94qluEPOMH Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:15, Dylan Carlson wrote: > I think the problem comes in is if you have done exhaustive testing again= st=20 > a specific profile, and subsequently want to deploy a series of new=20 > systems using that profile-- which worked at one time, but now is broken=20 > in one way or another because ebuilds were taken out of the tree. This=20 > scenario is one of those "enterprise" problems, but one that I think coul= d=20 > be solved through repoman checks. Unless I'm completely mistaken about=20 > what's being discussed here. While I can definitely see this position, nobody should consider Gentoo to be 100% enterprise friendly without some leg work on the part of the admin. A "tested profile" would also have to include specific versions, otherwise there is no way that a person could properly certify the validity of the test. The only way to ensure a stable (as in non-moving) tree is to maintain a local tree, or to *never* sync. In both cases, the actions of the Gentoo development team should have absolutely zero impact on the user. We understand that this is a limitation of Gentoo, which is why a GLEP was drafted for the "stable" tree and also why there is a group of people working to bring "Enterprise Gentoo" to fruition. Right now we have no simple answer, other than for the administrator to be vigilant.=20 After all, simply running an emerge sync and updating packages without certifying each one is definitely not "enterprise" policy at any large outfit. No amount of repoman checking will solve this, as it is more of a infrastructure problem than a technical one. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer Gentoo Linux Is your power animal a penguin? --=-kWx80krQ/F94qluEPOMH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBA5cW6kT4lNIS36YERAnkDAJ0U3NMCN43e86nlLMdUxebAZuXozQCbBmF5 FTAWJL6QNRHhty5dJCNiVsA= =ylgO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kWx80krQ/F94qluEPOMH--