Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 19, reloaded (again)

[Corey Shields <cshields@gentoo.org>]

On Monday 09 August 2004 03:56 pm, Olivier Crete wrote:
> I'm re-proposing the tarball approach. When a stable release is made, a
> tarball of the tree would be taken (while removing all of the non-stable
> stuff and just keeping the arch keyworks if necessary..).. And then an
> overlay rsync for security updates would be created.. This ensures the
> long term survival of the release.. It also allows us to keep
> "distributing" very old release (we know how many shops still use
> redhat7 or even 6) without putting too much strain on the mirrors.

This isn't a realistic solution.  I think that moving away from the Portage 
tree as it is designed would be setting ourselves up to have a product with 
an end of life.  With an evolving tree, some things may not change for a 
year, but when they DO change, an update should be possible without breaking 
the system or needing to start from scratch.  The idea is not to freeze the 
tree permanently, but make it more "stable".

> Why do we need something as complex as profiling? And something that
> requires work from every maintainer

Profiling makes it such that we won't need work from every maintainer.

> Rsync is expensive for servers.. lets keep it down to the minimum. Its
> much easier to get ftp/http mirrors than rsync...

This is not true.  We have MANY more rsync mirrors than we have source 
mirrors.  The problem here is that most people don't have the disk space 
required for a distfiles mirror, whereas an rsync (portage) mirror is easy.  
I envision "enterprise" systems as needing to sync the tree less, especially 
if there are fewer updates expected.  The rsync issue really isn't an issue 
(and I'm not a fan of rsync by any means).

Cheers!

-C

-- 
Corey Shields
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list