From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5201 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 00:27:44 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 00:27:44 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bn4xT-0001ub-R0 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:27:43 +0000 Received: (qmail 27831 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2004 00:27:22 +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 26047 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 00:27:21 +0000 Message-ID: <40FDB868.8070404@engr.orst.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:27:20 -0700 From: Michael Marineau User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040702) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20040720131405.GW18023@mail.lieber.org> In-Reply-To: <20040720131405.GW18023@mail.lieber.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian GNU/Linux) at oregonstate.edu X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19 X-Archives-Salt: 86b2120a-cadf-43cf-aa7c-4af828589b41 X-Archives-Hash: ae15bcfbe1075f4d8b75888db0a34255 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kurt Lieber wrote: | A while back, I wrote GLEP 19[1] based on some of the needs of the | gentoo-server project. For various reasons, the GLEP was tabled at the | time and never went anywhere. A number of folks have expressed an interest | in revitalizing this GLEP, so I'd like to start a new discussion about | implementing it. There was a couple of previous threads on this GLEP back | when it was first introduced that I'll include[2] for your reference. | | So, with that said, thoughts, comments and other ideas are welcome. | | --kurt | | [1] http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0019.html | [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/15511 | http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/15584 (round 2) ~From the looks of the thread so far people seem to be leaning toward implimenting this system via profiles rather than the suggested new keyword system in the GLEP. I think there are a couple issues with that solution, maybe someone can clarify this for me. 1. Users dealing with profiles would need to be able to be easily change, and review the possible profiles via a nice interface so that when that quartly switch comes, it isn't to hard to understand what is going on. 2. This will require a bit of a paradigm shift in users. At the moment it seems ~ (in the eyes of a normal user) like profiles are something in the background of the system, but no one other than gentoo devs need know what they are or how to use them. This is just my impression. 3. If a profile defines a specific set of packages that should not be upgraded how are the possible security upgrades handled? If the profile defines package versions then the profile would need to be modified. From my understanding a stable profile normally should not be modified, but maybe this will change? - -- Michael Marineau marineam@engr.orst.edu Oregon State University -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA/bhoiP+LossGzjARAm3OAJ9kRitfKjHTd7pULZDa8vXzQFGBXQCfcA2H 5WS/WvTVKo8G0F9IFj+YU0s= =JW6Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list