From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j573ZXfG030244 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 03:35:34 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DfUse-0002h1-Uu for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:35:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 22028 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2005 23:33:53 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 6 Jun 2005 23:33:53 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] where goes Gentoo? Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:36:03 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <20050606235550.GL9084@kaf.zko.hp.com> <200506062029.09766.absinthe@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200506062029.09766.absinthe@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506062336.03025.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: e0ef90e5-a711-47ca-8277-199dad01334f X-Archives-Hash: a72e298068563da5cad1990071db23cd On Monday 06 June 2005 11:29 pm, Dylan Carlson wrote: > On Monday 06 June 2005 19:45, Collins Richey wrote: > > 2. Enterprise users (as a general rule) are not interested in the > > latest and greatest but rather in a stable, reasonably current system > > that can remain in place (with guaranteed security fixes, of course) > > with no "feature creep" for a few years. Even Gentoo stable is too > > much of a moving target for such users. The user base (engineers > > developing embedded Linux) I support is still well served by RH9 for > > the most part! > > "Feature creep" is largely a problem upstream, not with package > maintainers. And no, we're not gonna backport anything. If people really > believe that backporting fixes = stable and/or secure, let them use RH. > It's a belief, nothing more. you really cant make that kind of general statement and expect it to hold ... often times there are packages where newer versions suck more than previous ones (the way in which they suck i leave up to your imagination) ... security/stable minded people are often served best by ripping out the small fixes for the current 'most stable' version and i'm talking bugfixes here, not feature backports like redhat is known for ... these are two very different things afterall -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list