Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:21:09
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=Gom_sric91p_1bVVY_wNhgurtvDPr4xR2uLPL5--YhQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format by "M. J. Everitt"
1 On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote:
2 >
3 > If you can really present a decent argument for replicating the
4 > functionality of other distros like Debian, Arch, Ubuntu etc then let's
5 > here it. For now, the strength of Gentoo is being able to fully customise a
6 > system to your own requirements, not being trapped by some distro
7 > maintainer's arbitrary choices. Play to your USP's and strengths rather
8 > than chasing rainbows ..
9 >
10
11 Why do we support binary packages at all? Simple: compiling packages
12 is expensive, and if you happen to already have them compiled, fully
13 customized to your own requirements, then there is no point in
14 recompiling them. You're just spending a ton of resources to build
15 the exact same files you already have.
16
17 The only change I'm suggesting is that portage could take all the
18 configuration you're already supplying, and then optionally go see if
19 somebody you trust has already built the package that meets your
20 requirements. If so, then it would be downloaded and installed,
21 otherwise it would just compile from source.
22
23 You get the exact same files installed on your system either way.
24
25 --
26 Rich

Replies