Michael Higgins wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:51:05 +0000 > Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:13:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >> >>>> Could he just not sync and call it a day? I suspect this is >>>> going to bite him one day tho. We know Gentoo likes to be >>>> updated fairly regular. I been around Gentoo for years and I >>>> don't think I would want to do this. I'm not sure how much >>>> experience the OP has tho. >>>> > > No worries. If I break it, I get to keep the pieces... > > >>> Michael's been around a while, his name is familiar. He did say he >>> wants -rN updates so I take that to mean he wants bug fixes and >>> security updates but everything else to stay that same and >>> especially no potential ABI/API changes >>> >> One potential problem is ebuilds disappearing from the portage tree as >> packages are updated, so it would be worth copying everything he uses >> (or the whole tree) into an overlay. >> >> > > Thanks to you both for all the suggestions and caveats... I'll report back > when I've done the script to populate package.mask with atoms *pre-*pended by > '~'. > > As one of you mentioned, it's not an unreasonable thing to want to "freeze" a > system, but OTOH Gentoo does like regular updating. > > If something drops from the tree, that's okay... My goal is, for packages > I've unmasked for the architecture, that they don't keep being updated to the > latest available, but eventually come into concordance with 'stable'. > > Cheers, > >
Something like this was actually discussed a while back for people with servers that have to be seriously stable. I don't think anything ever came out of it but you may want to check around and see if it did and we missed it. I would think Alan would know if it did tho since I think he maintains a few servers. Few may be understating it a bit. ;-) I think this could be a good idea for some myself. Dale :-) :-)
