| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 04:29:00AM -0400, Cedric Veilleux wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't agree. Gentoo already supports binary packages anyways (emerge -b / |
| 3 |
> emerge -k). |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yes, but there's also a good reason why --buildpkgonly needs you to have the |
| 6 |
dependancies already :o) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I can build packages here and they'll be useful for me. Given the options I've |
| 9 |
set, my packages may be good for a set of people. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The set of people my packages will work for is big but that's because I've not |
| 12 |
got a slow machine :o) The number of folk that have the same flags is like |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'd have said a distcc / ccache compile farm that builds by request and caches |
| 15 |
packages based on USE/CFLAG etc and dependancy USE/CFLAG is a great sounding |
| 16 |
idea. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You wouldn't need to change gentoo, just make it web based as proof of concept. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I bet once you try to scale it, it'll be quicker to build what you want on |
| 21 |
a celery[0], and that the faster athlon-xp/p4 systems would get the best benefit. |
| 22 |
Unless you drop them. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[0] the criteria being that you want a substantially different system from |
| 25 |
using stock Debian + a few source compiles like your own kernel. Highly |
| 26 |
optimised. You don't need to convince anyone that you can create a "take it or |
| 27 |
leave it" binary distribution that runs on slower machines, you need to show |
| 28 |
that you can build and distribute a gentoo system giving the celery owner the |
| 29 |
same choices as though they had used source - otherwise you haven't improved |
| 30 |
anything, imo. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Michael. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives