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 07:05:18
Message-Id: 1243321504.9661.14.camel@hspc30.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 Hi Duncan,
2
3 I don't see the connection between the email Fabio wrote and your
4 answer. Do you want to say, that you agree that he's doing what i
5 described and that it works the way i described it? I doubt it. If you
6 really care, could you answer my first email and state there the
7 problems you see with the approach and why you think this is making
8 Gentoo worse?
9
10 On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 11:43 +0000, Duncan wrote:
11 > Gentoo is in general a from-source metadistribution. There's limited
12 > support for binary packages in at least one of the package managers
13 > (portage), but honestly, that's not what Gentoo's best at, and I don't
14 > believe that will ever change without making it significantly worse at
15 > what it IS best at now, the normal from-source Gentoo we know and love.
16
17 But how would you make it worse? It already has the functionality to add
18 repositories for binpackages, why not improve it? Why leave it the way
19 it is?
20
21 > Better to leave the serious distribution level binary repackaging to the
22 > Gentoo-based distributions like Sabayon. Let them do what they do best,
23 > and let Gentoo continue doing what it does best. By definition, binary
24 > packaging isn't broken and doesn't need fixed, as that's not part of what
25 > defines Gentoo, so don't fix what ain't broken! =:^)
26
27 Well actually, some time ago Gentoo was by definition running a linux
28 kernel or a BSD kernel and now it runs in a prefix on Windows and AIX
29 and Solaris. Some time ago there was some guy called drobbins who was
30 kind of the leader of Gentoo and now we have a council. If you really
31 don't want changes, you could stop running emerge --sync.
32
33 > That said, I could envision an eselect like "binary profile" switcher,
34 > that subject to settings in a config file, changes USE flags, CFLAGS, gcc-
35 > configs an appropriate gcc version, etc, changing PKGDIR appropriately as
36 > well, so one could easily enough create as many "binary profiles" as
37 > desired and as the use case dictated. It's likely various reasonably
38 > large Gentoo deployments are already doing something like this as it
39 > could certainly be scripted, but an emergable package to make it easy for
40 > ordinary joe Gentoo user would be useful, and I believe appreciated by
41 > many.
42 >
43 > (Here, I'd put it to use when testing new gcc versions, making it easy to
44 > swap out PKGDIRs and revert to the old version either per-package or
45 > system-wide, if the new version was breaking too much.)
46 >
47 > So here: No to the whole big complicated let's fix Gentoo binaries
48 > thing. There's already Gentoo-based binary solutions like Sabayon for
49 > those so interested, and I can't see Gentoo doing better than they're
50 > doing, at least not without breaking the from-source that Gentoo's good
51 > at. But yes to anyone interested in developing a nice new "binary
52 > profile" switcher to make managing binary package sets easier for those
53 > Gentoo admins that would find such a thing useful. Whether they then
54 > start making those profiles public and whether anyone else chooses to use
55 > them is entirely up to the individual admins whose systems would be
56 > affected.
57
58 Not sure, what the binary profile switcher really would change here.
59 What I was talking about were mostly USE-flags and packages, and I guess
60 your binary profile switcher doesn't change too much, there.
61
62 It would be ok to do all this stuff in an extra project, without Gentoo.
63 But there are some downsides: You are not Gentoo anymore. The
64 communication channels get longer and more complicated. In my first post
65 i described some things that would need to be changed. Either in portage
66 or in the policy how packages are dealt with. Well, the last is a little
67 bit impossible outside of Gentoo (I don't want to fork the tree) and I
68 also don't want to fork portage, so the first is complicated, too.
69
70 And all this layer thing Fabio was talking about. I did not try it and I
71 did not read the code, but I think it makes things much more
72 complicated. See also the discussion about mixing package managers
73 between Gentoo and Sabayon. I do not want these problems.
74
75 Philipp

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages lxnay@××××××××××××.org