On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
Todd Berman <tberman@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Peter Fein wrote:
> 
> > > >
> > > > I think it solves a lot of complains about flexibility and edging of
> > > > Gentoo.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What complaints ? Is it so hard to download an ebuild in put it in your
> > > local overlay ? The extra step required does make sure you are aware
> > > that you are using non-approved ebuilds.
> >
> > I'd be aware I'd be using non-approved ebuilds if I set those vars in the
> > first place & portage warned/notified me which repository it was installing
> > from. This architecture rocks - restricting it to approved packages only
> > deprives folks of a really great tool (wow, I'm sounding awfully "software
> > wants to be free" today...).
> 
> I'd have to disagree with you here, I think it would be a bad idea to have
> something like this set up. What would happen if 'proper' gentoo has
> package foo version 1.0 and it depends on package bar 0.5, and breaks with
> anything newer. Then one of your new rsync's puts in package bar 0.7 and
> breaks the 'official' foo package for you. Just seems like a lose lose
> situation.

Shouldn't it be <=bar-0.5'd then anyway?  Just thinkin...

> The advantage of gentoo and portage is your are being told that these
> packages SHOULD work together, and if they dont, put in a bug, and we will
> figure out why.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it like that - for me, it's the customization plus the
automation of a lot of the tedious stuff - dependencies, downloading, etc..

> And remember, if you need a new package, just install it from source, its
> not that hard :)

You're right, it's not so bad.  Though at work, I've got to deal with compiling
stuff on a half-maintained Solaris x86 platform.  I haven't built anything
remotely complex in less than 3 days - it's skewered my perspective... ;)

--Pete

-- 
Peter Fein
pfein@...
773-575-0694

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list