| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Beber wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, do you guys plan to implement a such thing ? That's one of the |
| 3 |
> features that is mostly missing imho. The principal miss in on client |
| 4 |
> side as I have tools to manage packages but would like to not have too |
| 5 |
> much specific scripts on client side. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I like the way it done in OpenEmbedded. You have the tree of recipes (think of portage tree) |
| 8 |
and bunch of targets. For each target BitBake can generate binary release and package feed. |
| 9 |
Client package management is lightweight and does not require BitBake, recipes tree and even |
| 10 |
python. At least this is my lame interpretation of how it works :) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Maybe this "metadistribution" approach is cleaner than binary package support in emerge. If |
| 13 |
user wants to compile packages on the client, he uses portage. If not - he can setup build |
| 14 |
server for multiple targets and completely drop portage from client machines. The only thing |
| 15 |
client should know is feed url with full list of binary packages. And I do not think client |
| 16 |
should deal with USE flags - for large installations unification is the only sane way to scale. |
Archives