Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Spider <spider@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Binary release of gentoo
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:45:10
Message-Id: 20030410104506.7c4dc541.spider@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Binary release of gentoo by Cedric Veilleux
1 begin quote
2 On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:13:03 -0400
3 Cedric Veilleux <cedric@×××××××.com> wrote:
4
5 > USE flags enabled in this package (only the ones relevant to the
6 > particuliar package)
7
8 already there, tagged at the end of a .tbz2
9
10 <cut>
11
12 > Then a binary enabled portage would contact a master server and ask
13 > for a binary package compiled with the right combination of USE flags,
14 > profile and CHOST and if it exists download it and install it, and if
15 > it does not compile it from the sources..
16
17 unfortunately this requires a loot of computing and storage on the
18 server, as well as bandwidth. That why I suggested a set of simple
19 defaults, people who go beyond that, go for source. We really
20 shouldnt spend the energy on "fixing" another set of binary package
21 management when others have done that for us already. (dpkg, rpm, slack,
22 bsd)
23
24 The GRP are a nice step, and works well, if we could make it a bit more
25 usable than current. I dont advocate going for a lot of hoops and
26 developertime to make a binary distro as smooth as Gentoo is from
27 source, since it wouldnt ever be maintained in the same way. I do
28 however advocate that GRP become easier to use by default.
29
30
31 //Spider
32
33
34
35
36 --
37 begin .signature
38 This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
39 See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
40 end