Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:41:51
Message-Id: 1243334507.9661.26.camel@hspc30.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages by lxnay@sabayonlinux.org
1 On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 11:27 +0200, lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote:
2 > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de> wrote:
3 > > And all this layer thing Fabio was talking about. I did not try it and I
4 > > did not read the code, but I think it makes things much more
5 > > complicated. See also the discussion about mixing package managers
6 > > between Gentoo and Sabayon. I do not want these problems.
7
8 > incorrect. Give it a spin ;)
9
10 I'll do, if i find the time.
11
12 > Problems we have were *only* related to Portage world file handling,
13 > fixed some time ago. I am sorry to say that the issue reported here
14 > doesn't seem to be valid. Of course, if you mix both, you need to pay
15 > attention to not change USE flags (for eg.) that trigger libraries
16 > compilation, but that's a known binary-world problem.
17
18 You're talking about binary-world problems here that Gentoo as a source
19 based distribution does not have, I assume. This is a strength of Gentoo
20 and I think we can keep it for binary packages by a good design. If you
21 emerge a package in Gentoo it gets build from source. If you use a
22 binary distribution, you cannot influence, what flags were used for
23 building the package. But with a hybrid approach (I was aming for that
24 one in my proposal), you would simply have the choice to either install
25 a binary package and be restricted, if it's not available in the way you
26 want it, or install it from source. And it would work together, because
27 you don't have 2 package managers that need to interface, talk, share,
28 work together, whatever, but you have 1 package manager that does it all
29 and can keep it consistent.
30
31 > I agree with you that there could be some more room for improvements
32 > here and there (especially in kernel module ebuilds), but with EAPI=2
33 > we're going in the right direction.
34
35 Kernel packages and kernel modules are not really of interest for me. I
36 would keep them as source packages. My aim is not to make thigns easier,
37 but to provide the user with the tools to save 8 hours of compiling
38 openoffice or something like that. Not a binary distribution, but some
39 kind of -bin packages, just packaged by Gentoo and better.
40
41 Philipp