List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Max Arnold dixit (2010-01-29, 12:24):
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Beber wrote:
> > So, do you guys plan to implement a such thing ? That's one of the
> > features that is mostly missing imho. The principal miss in on
> > client side as I have tools to manage packages but would like to not
> > have too much specific scripts on client side.
> I like the way it done in OpenEmbedded. You have the tree of recipes
> (think of portage tree) and bunch of targets. For each target BitBake
> can generate binary release and package feed. Client package
> management is lightweight and does not require BitBake, recipes tree
> and even python. At least this is my lame interpretation of how it
> works :)
> Maybe this "metadistribution" approach is cleaner than binary package
> support in emerge. If user wants to compile packages on the client, he
> uses portage. If not - he can setup build server for multiple targets
> and completely drop portage from client machines. The only thing
> client should know is feed url with full list of binary packages. And
> I do not think client should deal with USE flags - for large
> installations unification is the only sane way to scale.
I think something similar is very nicely done on R-Path based
distributions (with "flavours" ). Conary itself also seems to be a
pretty well thought out package manager.