Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/3/06, Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:
> Steve Long wrote: [Fri Nov 03 2006, 02:47:52AM CST]
> > The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
> > compile with standard C-flags right?) but I was thinking about standardising
> > for 2 or 3 types of network- SOHO, medium and large enterprise (eg for LDAP
> > etc) would solve most cases. We can always tag pkgs with USE flags.

If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
up for debate.

Genux tried providing binary packages for generic Gentoo systems.
They ultimately failed as a business.

> > If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary repo
> > (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little bit
> > behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users would.

I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
vendors provide you with.

I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".

> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)

Definitely.

Best regards,
Stu
--
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list