Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Stuart Herbert]

On 11/7/06, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
> I accept that has been the position. As for devs not wanting to do it, I'm
> thinking it would be part of the standard emerge process (ie binhost/PKGDIR
> and -b) but you would need to add tagging of USE flags if the binary format
> ATM does not include which flags were used.
>
> So yes, it might add time/ network in terms of uploading but nothing else.

Sorry, that's not correct.

If random-joe-developer simply uploaded whatever packages he has
locally to a central repository, you'll just end up with a large
binary mess.  The binary packages need to be built as a set, to be
sure that there is no ABI breakage going on.

> Stuart Herbert wrote:
> > If the Seeds project proves successful, I'd be interested in providing
> > binary packages for seeds.  Whether that'll be as part of Gentoo, or
> > whether it'll be better to move downstream (so to speak) to do so is
> > up for debate.
> >
> So you are looking to provide /some/ sort of binary packages as part of an
> official Gentoo project then.

See above.  I'm interested in providing binary packages for updating
systems, yes - systems that are running seeds.  Whether they're
provided through Gentoo or not hasn't yet been discussed at all.  We
need to actually finish and release the LAMP Server seed first :)

I'm not interested in providing binary packages for a generic Gentoo
'binary' release.  My personal opinion is that this isn't what Gentoo
is about.

> I accept that for the enterprise compiling from source may well be better,
> based on Robin Johnson's reply. However this point about system breakage is
> serious *for users*.

Yes - but binary packages on their own have nothing to do with
preventing system breakage.  You're chasing completely the wrong bus
to solve that problem.

Best regards,
Stu
--
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list