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 1H1Kbv-0004I4-Ae for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:41:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l01AcELG019934; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:38:14 GMT Received: from smtp4.clear.net.nz (smtp4.clear.net.nz [203.97.37.64]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l01Aa32L002788 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:36:04 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.11] (121-72-65-35.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.72.65.35]) by smtp4.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail) with ESMTP id <0JB60034SQS2S210@smtp4.clear.net.nz> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:36:03 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:36:02 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? In-reply-to: <89646b4a0612311834o6a5928bcsaf0c6e57921a038c@mail.gmail.com> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <4598E412.3000509@paradise.net.nz> 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 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <89646b4a0612241752i127b3c29iec9f88687085c6c@mail.gmail.com> <4597AA7A.2070302@planet.nl> <200612311341.12472.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <89646b4a0612311529p36468a62yebf35860f00da4b6@mail.gmail.com> <89646b4a0612311701q5b705e09n425c9c8e5a01a4c9@mail.gmail.com> <4598668C.6000800@ep.mine.nu> <89646b4a0612311834o6a5928bcsaf0c6e57921a038c@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061227) X-Archives-Salt: 86b31246-d736-480e-8d9a-9ff15053bcad X-Archives-Hash: c942b2246c30a025583243e6c47f0a12 Mike Myers wrote: > (snippage) > I'm not trying to suggest that Gentoo should go to a binary distro or > anything like that. I'm just wondering why there > isn't some kind of update management system to like, differentiate minor > updates like firefox 1.5.0.5 to firefox 1.5.0.7 > and major ones like, y'know, gcc 3.4.4 to 4+? Ok - sorry, was misled by the mentioning of packages! > > The update system is the -only- nice thing about it over Gentoo. Debian > is nowhere near Gentoo when it comes to everything else (especially > docs). I don't think suggesting a single feature that another distro > has and putting into Gentoo is trying to make it a clone. I'm just > asking for a relief from having to constantly worry if updating > something out of the 300 packages that need updated is going to break > something, and not having to make sure etc-update isn't going to destroy > my custom configs afterwards. If it wasn't for that, Gentoo would be > perfect. I'm sure there's got to be others that would agree. Yeah, it would be good to know an update is not going to give a broken system - but to implement some sort of (extra) tagged release testing would be a significant amount of effort for the community. In addition it could be argued that there is potentially little real gain in doing this, as it is *never* possible to ensure no breakage (e.g. Microsoft updates are a case in point...). At the end of the day, regardless of whatever release engineering/quality process Gentoo (or any software product) has, you really have to follow the steps: 1/ Update (1 or more) machines in your test environment. 2/ Run your test suite. 3/ Update the rest of your machines if 2/ pases. Personally I don't see why this does not scale. Cheers Mark -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list