| 1 |
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:08:33 -0700 |
| 2 |
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That's one use case, yes. Now what are the others? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Release building... Backups... Testing newer packages... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Now expand upon those. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Oh yeah,and who said we really needed more than one use case? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If you make your design decisions based upon a single use case, your |
| 12 |
design will probably suck when people try to use it for anything else. |
| 13 |
Since people clearly are using binary packages for at least three |
| 14 |
different things, all of those three things need to be considered. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I think providing tools to allow Gentoo to be adopted in the |
| 17 |
> corporate environment is reason enough to have binary package |
| 18 |
> support, and I feel that many people will agree with me. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You miss my point. I'm not saying binaries are useless. I'm saying you |
| 21 |
should establish all of what they're used for before making changes. A |
| 22 |
change that improves binary packages for one use case may make them |
| 23 |
less ideal for others. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives