1 |
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > If you can really present a decent argument for replicating the |
6 |
> > functionality of other distros like Debian, Arch, Ubuntu etc then let's |
7 |
> > here it. For now, the strength of Gentoo is being able to fully |
8 |
> customise a |
9 |
> > system to your own requirements, not being trapped by some distro |
10 |
> > maintainer's arbitrary choices. Play to your USP's and strengths rather |
11 |
> > than chasing rainbows .. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Why do we support binary packages at all? Simple: compiling packages |
15 |
> is expensive, and if you happen to already have them compiled, fully |
16 |
> customized to your own requirements, then there is no point in |
17 |
> recompiling them. You're just spending a ton of resources to build |
18 |
> the exact same files you already have. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> The only change I'm suggesting is that portage could take all the |
21 |
> configuration you're already supplying, and then optionally go see if |
22 |
> somebody you trust has already built the package that meets your |
23 |
> requirements. If so, then it would be downloaded and installed, |
24 |
> otherwise it would just compile from source. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
> You get the exact same files installed on your system either way. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
I think this conversation is a bit off track. I'm not saying this isn't a |
31 |
great idea, but I think its very orthogonal to the binpkg format itself. |
32 |
|
33 |
For example, the binhost pkg index file can contain this metadata and |
34 |
portage can be designed to fetch the binpkg index metadata and do matching |
35 |
(afaik it already does this; it just needs extending with more metadata.) |
36 |
The binpkg format itself seems not too relevant to this. |
37 |
|
38 |
-A |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
> |
42 |
> -- |
43 |
> Rich |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |