| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:06, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> > That's a damaging state of mind. Wanting to adhere to one's original |
| 3 |
> > goals is great, but it's resulted in the stagnation of every open-source |
| 4 |
> > project which has done so rigidly. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So you think we should strive to be a binary distribution? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> How would sticking to our source-based model cause "stagnation"? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Binary distribution? Heck no |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm not comfortable with people who want to stick with their roots - |
| 14 |
I've seen too many examples of things not working out with that sort of |
| 15 |
mentality. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The user representation apparent in #Gentoo on FreeNode seems to provide |
| 18 |
an example of the increased interest from all sides in the distribution |
| 19 |
since the 1.4 release. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Is this a result of a simple new version? Does the binary installation |
| 22 |
method have no impact on that at all? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
All I'm saying is, we have an existing set of resources we're spending |
| 25 |
on GRP, and it wouldn't take much more to do a four-month update of |
| 26 |
them, just to keep the desktop environments and certain other things |
| 27 |
easy to install. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Gentoo remains a source-based distribution, just as FreeBSD over its |
| 30 |
ten-year history has maintained source-code as the primary means of |
| 31 |
updating and installing packages. It just gets a little more convenient |
| 32 |
to install. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives