| 1 |
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 03:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 25 September 2002 21:57, wes chow wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Good point... here's the subtle difference that I overlooked: Gentoo is |
| 5 |
> > Portage plus a collection of ebuilds. The analogy, then, is that RedHat |
| 6 |
> > and SuSE use the same distribution method (RPMs), but consist of packages |
| 7 |
> > built by a different group of people. (note, I have zero experience with |
| 8 |
> > SuSE, so I could be far off the mark) Thus, if you rip out Portage and |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That's about right |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > start your own collection of ebuilds, you will no longer have a Gentoo |
| 13 |
> > system. I think this is a resonable distinction, because a different |
| 14 |
> > group of developers would manage that collection and have its own set of |
| 15 |
> > bugs and userbase and file layout, etc. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> That's how I see it. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Not true at all, Gentoo is also the whole init system (scripting and |
| 22 |
tmpfs sides), try doing env-update or rc-update add sshd default on |
| 23 |
another distro. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is a lot more to Gentoo than portage or the ebuilds we supply for |
| 26 |
users. It is unlike any of the RedHat or the knockoffs (Mandrake, etc) |
| 27 |
in that Gentoo actually brought something _new_ to the table, and it was |
| 28 |
more than a little something. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Mark |
Archives