1 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
2 |
>>There have been some really interesting points brought up recently |
3 |
>>about "where is Gentoo going?" |
4 |
> |
5 |
> It feels like this topic comes up every year :) |
6 |
|
7 |
I'd say it should come up a little more often :) |
8 |
|
9 |
>>I have been wondering that myself. |
10 |
>>Some people seem to think that Gentoo has the potential to be an |
11 |
>>enterprise player. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Maybe, maybe not ... but I don't see why we couldn't do a little bit |
14 |
> more to make it easier for others to use us as a base. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Isn't that what *we're* about - being a metadistribution? |
17 |
|
18 |
If we follow the "metadistribution" trail we should have a set of |
19 |
high-level tools that really help people manage their own binary |
20 |
packages building and deployment. We (all?) know that the underlying |
21 |
technology is already in Gentoo, but there are still no authoritative |
22 |
tool(s) to : |
23 |
|
24 |
1- help rolling your own distribution based on Gentoo |
25 |
- tool to maintain frozen Portage trees |
26 |
- tool to roll out a software update pack including config files |
27 |
- ... |
28 |
|
29 |
2- help centralizing packages deployment on several workstations |
30 |
- help test software update packs on gold systems |
31 |
- push packages to multiple systems |
32 |
- do accountability on what's installed on systems |
33 |
- ... |
34 |
|
35 |
I'm not talking about releasing an "Enterprise-oriented" flavor of |
36 |
Gentoo, I'm just talking about enabling people to do so and the minimal |
37 |
deployment tools needed in a 5+ machine network. |
38 |
|
39 |
The size of the Portage tree gives us a definitive advantage : you can |
40 |
have 100% Portage-packages systems, so what's-in-this-box accountability |
41 |
is not the nightmare it can be with other systems that heavily rely on |
42 |
third-party RPMs. We should exploit that advantage. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Thierry Carrez (Koon) |
46 |
-- |
47 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |