Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

[M. J. Everitt]

On 11/11/18 19:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
>> If you can really present a decent argument for replicating the
>> functionality of other distros like Debian, Arch, Ubuntu etc then let's
>> here it. For now, the strength of Gentoo is being able to fully customise a
>> system to your own requirements, not being trapped by some distro
>> maintainer's arbitrary choices. Play to your USP's and strengths rather
>> than chasing rainbows ..
>>
> Why do we support binary packages at all?  Simple: compiling packages
> is expensive, and if you happen to already have them compiled, fully
> customized to your own requirements, then there is no point in
> recompiling them.  You're just spending a ton of resources to build
> the exact same files you already have.
>
> The only change I'm suggesting is that portage could take all the
> configuration you're already supplying, and then optionally go see if
> somebody you trust has already built the package that meets your
> requirements.  If so, then it would be downloaded and installed,
> otherwise it would just compile from source.
>
> You get the exact same files installed on your system either way.
>
Ok so I get the principle, but who's gonna provide the tools to make this
feasible, and perhaps more interestingly, who's going to curate, provide,
host and maintain the binpkg repos you propose? We barely have enough
developers to maintain a working source package repository, let alone
adding new distro "features" .. unless perhaps you have a few hours every
week to spare?

I see no sense in reinventing the wheel here, besides #thegentooway....