From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Gylqb-0003di-6K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:10:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kBP985Hr027409; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:08:05 GMT Received: from mirus.exceedtech.net (ns0.exceedtech.net [70.151.169.5]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBP965Ad001225 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 09:06:06 GMT Received: from [65.144.11.144] (0-1pool11-144.nas2.greenwood1.ms.us.da.qwest.net [65.144.11.144]) by mirus.exceedtech.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kBP961qQ014938 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 03:06:02 -0600 Message-ID: <458F9478.4080101@exceedtech.net> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 03:06:00 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061216 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage? References: <89646b4a0612241752i127b3c29iec9f88687085c6c@mail.gmail.com> <89646b4a0612250046v4ab20e76r50d1ae95cb6a5b89@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <89646b4a0612250046v4ab20e76r50d1ae95cb6a5b89@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 19671f92-dfd8-4974-8ea1-291eae055b53 X-Archives-Hash: c7f4570740bb61e83800e208bd0e1fb9 Mike Myers wrote: > I understand what you say, but I'm not sure I got my point across very > well. Let's say I have a server that has various things installed > like apache with the 2.0 branch, mysql with the 4.0 branch, and PHP > with the 4.x branch. If I do an emerge -u world on a machine with > these, at some random point in time when the devs decide the newer > branch is stable, then any one of these will be upgraded to the next > branch. What I am asking, is why wouldn't it be better to have it > where I will only stay on the current branch for that profile, and > only move to the next branch when I change the profile? Then you can mask them in package.mask and then it won't upgrade the ones you don't want to upgrade. When you get ready to upgrade, just comment the lines in the file and upgrade. > > Like, say I have the 2005 profile, then I wouldn't have to worry about > PHP upgrading to 5.0 or randomly requiring some virtual ebuild or > whatever else is decided to be thrown our way. I would just have to > worry about updating the 4.x branch at least until the devs decide to > stop supporting it. > > I think another advantage to using this method would be that it would > make it easier to transition from an application that has a monolithic > ebuild to suddenly having a modular ebuild, or a virtual ebuild. At > least this way, we wouldn't have to worry about fundamental things > changing on us during an update until we change the profile and can > expect these kinds of changes and can deal with them at a more > convenient time instead of when the devs decide it's time to for us. > > Does that make any sense? > > Well, I remember xorg going modular too. I read that some were having problems and I just masked it for a few weeks, then upgraded after it all got sorted out. It worked fine for me. I had no problems after that. All this said, it is rare that I have trouble doing a upgrade. Most of my problems come in when I am using something that is masked or keyworded. Then you can expect to have those though. There are ways to do what you want, it just seems to defeat the purpose of having Gentoo in my opinion. Dale :-) :-) -- www.myspace.com/dalek1967 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list