| 1 |
> > The car analogy isn't so useful becuase it's important that we do what's |
| 2 |
> > right, not that we do what already has a precedent. Gentoo is Portage. |
| 3 |
> > Portage needs GNU utilities like a fish needs a bicycle. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> No, gentoo is as much portage as Redhat is rpm. If that were the case SUSE and |
| 7 |
> Redhat would be the same, as they are both rpm based. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Good point... here's the subtle difference that I overlooked: Gentoo is |
| 10 |
Portage plus a collection of ebuilds. The analogy, then, is that RedHat |
| 11 |
and SuSE use the same distribution method (RPMs), but consist of packages |
| 12 |
built by a different group of people. (note, I have zero experience with |
| 13 |
SuSE, so I could be far off the mark) Thus, if you rip out Portage and |
| 14 |
start your own collection of ebuilds, you will no longer have a Gentoo |
| 15 |
system. I think this is a resonable distinction, because a different |
| 16 |
group of developers would manage that collection and have its own set of |
| 17 |
bugs and userbase and file layout, etc. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
A distribution is a collection or package of software. I don't see why |
| 20 |
the contents of any package should dictate the name of that package. I |
| 21 |
don't follow that logic. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Wes |
Archives