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

[Steve Long]

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> From all of the large Gentoo deployments I've done (one of which
> exceeded 200 machines), you're approaching this the wrong way.
> ...
Thanks for the concise and clear explanation. It's the first time I've read
a description of how Gentoo might be used on an entreprise level. As Paul
says:
> It would be cool if you could write up a howto for others who want to do
this.
..although I figure if you know enough about gentoo to take a job
administering you should be able to follow that explanation well enough.

Grant Goodyear wrote:
>> Yes, I know gentoo is a meta-distro. And that there isn't loads of
>> bandwidth.  That's easily got round.
>
> It is?
>
Yes. I'd be happy to set up the site and I'm sure other users would be happy
to contribute.

>> The main problem I see is USE flags (devs already
>> compile with standard C-flags right?)...We can always tag
>> pkgs with USE flags.
>>
>
> I think you'll find that there is little interest (among devs) in Gentoo
> maintaining a binary sub-distribution.  My view, and for some time it's
> been our semi-official view, is that Gentoo can serve as a nice base for
> creating a binary distribution, and we encourage people to do so, but
> that it shouldn't be a part of Gentoo itself.
>
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.

> (That said, it's true that there is still a real need for better support
> for binaries in portage, especially for handling USE conflicts.)
>
I think the above would _start_ to handle that.

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.

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> My compiles as a dev are of very minimal use to anybody except me.
> There are too many things that are specific to my systems.
>
Sure. Presumably you test packages with standard C-flags as users are
advised to before bug-reporting? Other than USE flags what else would make
your packages unsuitable for others? If it's only USE flags, then at least
the pkg is a start- if others want different settings they can compile
their own.

Hopefully we could set up a collaborative build process so others could
upload their builds. In terms of security though, this would have to be
restricted to devs (of the new project).

>> If gentoo is still serious about enterprise adoption, it needs a binary
>> repo (so we can avoid system breakage) which would of course be a little
>> bit behind. I'd be happy to contribute time, as I'm sure many other users
>> would.
>
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think that's total rot, sorry.  A binary distro can break a system
> just as much as a source based one.  A source-based distro is just as
> practical in the enterprise; in fact, for web stuff, it's a lot more
> practical, because it gives you the flexibility to build a box to your
> exact needs, rather than having to compromise on what binary distro
> vendors provide you with.
and Grant Goodyear wrote:
> As for Gentoo being serious about enterprise adoption, I don't agree
> that we need a binary repo.  I think we ought to make it easy for our
> users to create and use their own, customized, distribution.  That's our
> strength as a meta-distribution.  (We also need to make it easy to
> install and replicate custom distributions, but we already have Catalyst
> and the Seeds project addressing those issues.)
>
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*.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> I think what you really need is an alternative package tree, one
> that's versioned and tested as a whole, and one that isn't "live".
>
That's also been discussed on the fora. I think the idea was that if we have
the tree in svn (or whatever) there would be better scope for branches to
enable exactly that.

Regards,
Steve.


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list