| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:08 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:35 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:31:32 -0700 |
| 4 |
> > Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > The specific underlying question being, what are the use cases for |
| 7 |
> > > > binary packages? |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Ever managed a network of multiple Gentoo identical Gentoo machines? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > That's one use case, yes. Now what are the others? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Release building... Backups... Testing newer packages... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Oh yeah,and who said we really needed more than one use case? I think |
| 16 |
> providing tools to allow Gentoo to be adopted in the corporate |
| 17 |
> environment is reason enough to have binary package support, and I feel |
| 18 |
> that many people will agree with me. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The issue isn't whether or not we should have them, or for that matter |
| 22 |
whether or not there is more then one use case. The issue is making sure |
| 23 |
that we know what the use cases are to ensure that the tools we have are |
| 24 |
flexible enough to be able to support every case and so that we don't |
| 25 |
paint ourselves into a corner by making decisions before we know how |
| 26 |
people plan on using the tool. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
At least that is how I see it... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
--Dan |
Archives