1 |
Igor posted on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:12:27 +0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> About 60% of all the packages are installed and work with nodep flag |
4 |
> without any problems for years. Most of the maintainers just depend on |
5 |
> new packages not knowing if it's necessary or not resulting in a really |
6 |
> HUGE update that in the absolute majority of cases destabilize GENTOO |
7 |
> making it not operational and WORSE than it was before. You then |
8 |
> STABILIZE it again spending hours and then the story repeats itself. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Experience show that out of 20 new dependencies pulled by emerge only 1 |
11 |
> is critical and really needed to assemble the target. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Is there any option in emerge to pull MINIMUM packages to get the result |
14 |
> - |
15 |
> install the application you need, leaving everything else AS IS |
16 |
> untouched and stable? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I would rather prefer and many would agree to use this kind of install |
19 |
> instead of a full system update by default. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Is there any USE flag that can switch system to this kind of update |
22 |
> instead of conventional? If no such USE flag, what about stabilize |
23 |
> gentoo with STABILIZED flag implementation in make.conf? |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Whoever needs everything new - can continue fighting with nature, |
26 |
> the rest of us who has a limited life span - well, they might go for |
27 |
> STABILIZED flag and live happily ever after. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> What do you think? |
30 |
|
31 |
The above reads to me like gentoo is an inappropriate distribution for |
32 |
your use. Gentoo doesn't claim to be all things to all people, and |
33 |
there's no shame for either gentoo or a user in a user switching to |
34 |
something else if gentoo simply doesn't match their needs. |
35 |
|
36 |
In general, gentoo strongly emphasizes a number of things, including: |
37 |
|
38 |
1) Rolling updates. Install once, run for years doing frequent |
39 |
incremental updates. |
40 |
|
41 |
2) Staying /relatively/ current. For many packages, Gentoo removes older |
42 |
versions from the tree relatively quickly, certainly compared to the |
43 |
distros listed below, and once it's no longer in-tree, there's zero gentoo |
44 |
support for it -- you're on your own. |
45 |
|
46 |
3) Build from source. Gentoo does have rather limited binary-package |
47 |
support, but it remains fairly rudimentary, and the general assumption is |
48 |
that binary packages are locally built and distributed, not as part of |
49 |
the distribution. (Tho at least in the past there have been binary- |
50 |
package ISOs distributed, but without regular update and with Gentoo's |
51 |
relatively rapid update cycle they're outdated rather quickly. I really |
52 |
don't know if there's current binpkg ISOs available or not.) |
53 |
|
54 |
3a) There are, however, some independent gentoo-based distros that are |
55 |
binary-based, at least one of which allow more or less seamless switching |
56 |
between gentoo's source-based ebuilds and their binary-based packages. |
57 |
Tho I don't know of any long-term-support distros doing this. |
58 |
|
59 |
Get outside of those norms and while gentoo may work, there's likely some |
60 |
other distribution that will work better. |
61 |
|
62 |
If you only want to update the minimum necessary, and in particular, if |
63 |
you're keeping versions that have been removed from the tree, then |
64 |
something with a *MUCH* slower update cadence, where people sticking to |
65 |
versions that work for years at a time regardless of possible updates, is |
66 |
far more likely to match your needs. Among the possibilities are: |
67 |
|
68 |
Red Hat (RHEL) and clones: CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle's Linux |
69 |
(forgot the name ATM). |
70 |
|
71 |
Red Hat is the gold standard, very long term commercial support, IIRC 10 |
72 |
years, and very good community relations as they employ many of the |
73 |
developers on a number of core Linux upstream projects. Oracle's Linux |
74 |
is commercial too, and is said to undercut RH in price, but has rather |
75 |
horrible community relations. CentOS and Scientific Linux more community |
76 |
oriented and supported, free to install and update. CentOS is now |
77 |
directly supported by Red Hat as a community version much like Fedora, |
78 |
only unlike Fedora, CentOS is a direct RHEL clone and long-term |
79 |
supported. Scientific Linux is an independent RHEL clone, I believe |
80 |
primarily developed as the platform CERN standardizes on. |
81 |
|
82 |
Debian: Stable and old-stable. |
83 |
|
84 |
100% community distribution with an emphasis on free as in freedom. |
85 |
Larger than most, certainly larger than gentoo. With a rather long |
86 |
release cycle and stable and old-stable, the support term is extended, |
87 |
but I don't believe it reaches that of Red Hat. |
88 |
|
89 |
Since I strongly believe in both software freedom and in the free and |
90 |
open source software community, this would probably be my choice if I |
91 |
needed longer term version stability and support. (FWIW, Arch Linux |
92 |
would probably be my choice for rapid-update, rolling-update, binary- |
93 |
core, source-based extra packages, distro, but that's not the focus of |
94 |
this thread and thus not on this list or mentioned elsewhere in this |
95 |
post.) |
96 |
|
97 |
Ubuntu LTS editions. |
98 |
|
99 |
Quite popular, longer term commercial support available, but Ubuntu/ |
100 |
Canonical do sometimes have somewhat contentious community relations and |
101 |
go their own way on some projects, with little non-Ubuntu/Canonical |
102 |
uptake. I'm not sure of the support term but I think it's three years |
103 |
full support on the LTS editions, 7-year extended. |
104 |
|
105 |
SuSE: SLED/SLES. |
106 |
|
107 |
I don't know so much about these. The OpenSuSE community edition seems |
108 |
to be well received, but of course doesn't have the longer term support |
109 |
of the commercial editions. Corporate ownership changed a few years ago |
110 |
and I know little of the new owners, but they do appear to be continuing |
111 |
active community involvement and project support (KDE, etc). Seems to be |
112 |
more popular in Europe and especially Eastern Europe than in the US, tho |
113 |
some US retailers have standardized on it for what amounts to locked-down |
114 |
kiosk and register type systems with outsourced maintenance and |
115 |
effectively zero local store user control. |
116 |
|
117 |
Those are all binary distros. If you want from-source and are willing to |
118 |
do more of your own support, there's |
119 |
|
120 |
Linux From Scratch (LFS) |
121 |
|
122 |
AFAIK this is 100% community and primarily consists of a maintained set |
123 |
of instructions for doing your own builds from sources in the common LFS |
124 |
context. It's thus less automated than gentoo, comparing to gentoo much |
125 |
like gentoo compares to the binary distros. But since you're doing all |
126 |
the building yourself, simply following the LFS instructions, you get to |
127 |
choose what and when to update on your OWN schedule. To my knowledge, |
128 |
there isn't a whole lot of support, but it doesn't really need it, since |
129 |
it's primarily a set of build instructions. You'd be on your own in |
130 |
terms of updates and security tracking, presumably being able to follow |
131 |
the same instructions for newer versions of individual packages for |
132 |
awhile, but at some point, you'd either migrate beyond the LFS context as |
133 |
the instructions you originally followed would no longer apply, or you'd |
134 |
need to grab a new set of release instructions and install again, using |
135 |
them. |
136 |
|
137 |
-- |
138 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
139 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
140 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |