From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kzvl3-0004cG-0j for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 465ABE0425; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6D1E0425 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3529564CE7 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.932 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfFQ-UC-zDPd for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EF465020 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Kzvkn-000118-V4 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:09 +0000 Received: from ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.99.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:09 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:09 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal for how to handle stable ebuilds Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20081110181334.GD7038@aerie.halcy0n.com> <4918D0BC.50202@gentoo.org> <4918DE04.8010207@gentoo.org> <49195BFA.7060404@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 2378ad83-3705-41e4-bbc8-d264cce8b7e5 X-Archives-Hash: ccda35153b4a8e89d839c4ec9e6f2cd0 Jose Luis Rivero posted 49195BFA.7060404@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:18:34 +0100: > Mixing software branches is very easy in the Gentoo world but it has > some problems. Are you going to install in your stable (production, > critial, important,...) system a combination of packages not tested > before? Your general post I agree with, but this part... If it's a "production, critical, important" system, then what is one=20 doing installing updates on it directly without verifying them on a=20 generally identical test system first? Either it's not actually so=20 important in the grand scheme of things after all, or one will certainly=20 find out eventually just how critical said machine is when it goes down=20 due to "live" testing on a production critical machine. Of course, that doesn't excuse a distribution doing its best to ensure=20 that doesn't happen, but no distribution is perfect. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman