From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8213 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2004 22:16:27 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Jul 2004 22:16:27 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BhFHd-00063W-NT for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:16:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 677 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jul 2004 22:16:25 +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 2495 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2004 22:16:24 +0000 Message-ID: <40E881B6.2010700@scms.waikato.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 10:16:22 +1200 From: Barry Shaw User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <40E4B84B.1040501@scms.waikato.ac.nz> <200407021706.44649.absinthe@gentoo.org> <1088804249.9271.55.camel@localhost> <200407030234.18628.absinthe@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200407030234.18628.absinthe@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for retirement of old gentoo 'versions' X-Archives-Salt: 5392fee3-4e6b-4085-8fc8-db9d76c32f96 X-Archives-Hash: c5b1ab5c1f71af6d11c6bbc1474f50c0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It looks like there are two separate issues here, packages in the profiles being removed and an enterprise gentoo. I'm mainly concerned at the moment about pinned package versions in the profiles being dropped out of portage which would break any machine build based on that profile. Given that in the 1.4 and 2004.0 profiles there is only one pinned package, it doesn't look like a major - its probably something that just ~ the maintainer for that package should be aware of (some automated check as previously mentioned would be a good safety net). If there were no pinned packages in the profiles, then as long as the cat-pkg names didn't change, the profile would exist indefinitely with little effort on any devs part. Now I'm not suggesting that profiles should be kept forever, but if they are made redundant with little or no notice, it can cause big problems if you've got hundreds of machines installed with that profile. That said, I think an enterprise gentoo is a good idea, but its not something that the devs should be lumbered with on top of maintaining ebuilds. It sounds like there is more than enough to do already 8). Can anyone point me in the direction of the people involved in enterprise gentoo? We've got about 250 machines currently gentooed, with more to come, so we might be able to offer some insights into large scale installations. | | The CVS branching / Gentoo Enterprise idea (to me) sounds overengineered. | I haven't done a survey of IT managers to see what their expectations are, | but in my 14 years, management, etc -- I know what /my/ basic requirements | are. | | 1/ Conservative defaults | 2/ A regular, predictable release schedule | 3/ Packages are not updated between releases, except in cases of | vulnerabilities or major bugfixes | 4/ In the event of #3, basic regression testing before the changes are | committed | 5/ Supporting documentation & tools geared towards enterprise deployment | I agree, if we can get a enterprise framework that exists within most of the current gentoo infrastructure, that means less work for everyone, and therefore a higher chance of a sustainable project. A stable portage tree would be the single most useful thing here. We only re-sync our portage copy when security vulnerabilities are announced, but due to the dynamic nature of the portage tree, this often means upgrading lots of other packages in the process (e.g. mozilla 1.7 breaks epiphany which means a gnome 2.4 to 2.6 upgrade for us. Not a big deal, but something that needs to be communicated to users before hand). Baz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA6IG1JvZkjpKMF2wRAg0fAJ9BvwBrb7uAT3sHknaOoTkffdpDWACgs5rk 1q7Zv3coQQhnddHAD7Ei8vA= =LQ7G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list