Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: better support for binary packages

[Ben de Groot]

lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Philipp Riegger <lists@××××××××××××.de>
> wrote:
>> See also the discussion about mixing package managers
>> between Gentoo and Sabayon. I do not want these problems.
>
> incorrect. Give it a spin ;)
> Problems we have were *only* related to Portage world file handling,
> fixed some time ago. I am sorry to say that the issue reported here
> doesn't seem to be valid.
> Of course, if you mix both, you need to pay attention to not change USE
> flags (for eg.) that trigger libraries compilation, but that's a known
> binary-world problem.

So are we going to discuss this or not?
To quote your own words back at you:

> This is gentoo-dev and you are OFF TOPIC.

> Next time, please post Sabayon specific stuff on our ML/com. channels.

...

*If* you want to promote entropy/equo (or other sabayon work) as a
possible solution here, you should be open to discuss its shortcomings.
If not, then you should refrain from bringing it up again.

To get back on topic: I think portage's current binary support works
reasonably well, based on some experience I have with building packages
for a second, slower machine. But I can see there are shortcomings,
mainly in the described problem of storing multiple versions of a binpkg
(with different useflags etc.).

I agree with Duncan that we do not want a change of focus away from
being a source-based distribution, but then that is not a change you
would be able to "sell" to the current developers anyway. That said,
there could very well be a Gentoo project, or people contributing to
portage development, to try and improve binary package support.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison
______________________________________________________