Re: Most upgradeable distro?

Mac Mason wrote:

>See, I would say Debian Stable or FreeBSD.
>Certainly not gentoo; I love my gentoo install, and portage makes
>upgrades easy, but the pace of development (including changes to
>portage, and changes to how things are done generally) is still too fast
>for my taste. (At least in a server environment).
>
>
>

While the gentoo portage system has it's quirks, I'd hardly say it's
difficult to keep it upgraded. I'm certainly not pleased to find that
rather frequently, some package will be r3 instead of r1 or r2, but I
*love* the fact that I don't have to worry about upgrades. I can put a
portage sync and an emerge -u wolrd in my crontab and not worry a lick
about it.

The 'important' packages for server stuff I've always hand-compiled
anyway; sendmail, qmail, apache, etc. So I don't need to worry about
that. I use the gentoo portage tree to make sure my normal packages are
updated (ssh, glib, etc).

Adam

> --Mac
>
>
>On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0900, Scott Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>Is there such a thing?
>>
>>What are some opinions of which distro would be the easiest to keep
>>current? I define easy as non-compiling, non-options tracking... RH
>>used to have up2date.... my FreeBSD box is pretty simple with it's
>>system installer.... how do other distro's compare?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Scott Johnson
>>scott.a.johnson@gmail.com
>>---------
>>To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
>>with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Sun Nov 7 16:11:23 2004