* [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-ng / Lost ebuilds?
@ 2003-12-05 3:29 rd
2003-12-05 8:42 ` Paul de Vrieze
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: rd @ 2003-12-05 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Referring to the following below, is portage-ng going to address this
very serious issue as related to applying JUST security updates to
"stable" production gentoo boxes?
- - - - -
Losing Ebuilds (a.k.a. the joys of openssl-0.9.7!)
Have a look at this problem around old computers doing security updates,
and running into trouble when the older ebuilds for a certain package
have been deleted from the tree as older versions.
- - - - -
thanks,
rdg
--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes!
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-ng / Lost ebuilds?
2003-12-05 3:29 [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-ng / Lost ebuilds? rd
@ 2003-12-05 8:42 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-06 4:33 ` rd
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul de Vrieze @ 2003-12-05 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]
On Friday 05 December 2003 04:29, rd wrote:
> Referring to the following below, is portage-ng going to address this
> very serious issue as related to applying JUST security updates to
> "stable" production gentoo boxes?
>
This is an issue that will hopefully be addressed in the future, but it has
little to do with portage. We will look at providing releases that we will
only provide security fixes on.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-ng / Lost ebuilds?
2003-12-05 8:42 ` Paul de Vrieze
@ 2003-12-06 4:33 ` rd
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: rd @ 2003-12-06 4:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-portage-dev
Paul --
That would be great! As 'gentoo rocks', it is suitable for production
servers. It is my personal server. I only apply security fixes on an
ongoing basis. Then quarterly I update my world. Regression testing is
a bitch, so I do not want to firefight those issues more than a few
times each year.
-rdg
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 02:42, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2003 04:29, rd wrote:
> > Referring to the following below, is portage-ng going to address this
> > very serious issue as related to applying JUST security updates to
> > "stable" production gentoo boxes?
> >
>
> This is an issue that will hopefully be addressed in the future, but it has
> little to do with portage. We will look at providing releases that we will
> only provide security fixes on.
>
> Paul
--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes!
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-06 4:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-05 3:29 [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-ng / Lost ebuilds? rd
2003-12-05 8:42 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-06 4:33 ` rd
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox