Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Feb 11, 2004, at 8:10 PM, Gregory Boyce wrote: > I've been a Gentoo user off and on since early 2002, and I'm currently > running it on most of my machines, including my desktop at work. Even > with this, I definitely agree it's not a good idea to use a widescale > deployment of machines with Gentoo. I'm actually in the process right > now of fixing some problems that a "emerge -u world" caused on my > machine, and I'm not running their "unstable" branch. > Yeah, I know these problems occur. I've been using gentoo for a very long time. I imagine that if we did roll this out, we'd have a testing box where we test all our upgrades before rolling them out. We certainly wouldn't have any sort of automated emerge -u world script. Basically, as a software developer, I work with tons of libraries. It would be extremely advantageous to install and uninstall packages the Gentoo way when I'm exploring options, as compared to RedHat way. > 1) Go with binary packages. Gentoo does support binary packages > (although I haven't used them). You should be able to build them > exactly how you want on one machine, and distribute to the rest. No > need to expend binary compile time * the number of machines. That was the plan. The real question was, once I have my compiled binary packages, how do I go about doing an install on other machines? > 2) Compile for lowest common denominator. It'll be hellish trying to Definitely. > 3) Look into the Gentoo Enterprise initiative that was just announced > in > last week's gentoo news letter > (http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20040202-newsletter.xml). It's just Thanks, I will. > 4) If you're not going with binary packages and the enterprise edition > doesn't work out, consider running your own rsync repository that you > update by hand. That way you can only upload the updated packages that > you've confirmed work. Note that this would only be worthwhile if > you're supporting a LOT of machines. If it's just a handful, fixing > the > machines that end up with the occasional issue might be less of a time > sink. Yeah, and interesting idea, but I think I'll be sticking with binary packages. I know there is the new binary package installation process, maybe I'll check that out. -- Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for not paying attention.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |