| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:04, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm going to be labeled as "not-user-friendly-bastard" on this one, but if |
| 3 |
> you have a user that GRP installs Gentoo, and then wants to GRP-update with |
| 4 |
> every release (and keeping in mind that drobbins want to increase the |
| 5 |
> release-frequency), I'd have to say that he should take a look at the binary |
| 6 |
> distributions. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I was going more for the manageability aspect - drop Gentoo in place |
| 9 |
inside 30 minutes, update to the latest GRP packages, then begin |
| 10 |
optimizing - I'd like to think of myself as an advanced user, and I'd |
| 11 |
really find it traumatic to have to wait 56 hours for my Athlon XP to |
| 12 |
rebuild from stage1 into GNOME 2.4 and get myself back to a functional |
| 13 |
workstation. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
All the benefits of being source-based remain, all the performance and |
| 16 |
customizability aspects of portage, but now we have a fast/up-to-date |
| 17 |
method of getting a system running. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> This is something that all distributions deliver: binary packages and an |
| 20 |
> "easy" way to source-compile packages but keep them in the database. If |
| 21 |
> Gentoo would go the same way, we are neglecting the source-based stuff. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
How so, beyond what we currently do with GRP? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Brad |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives