| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:33:27 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/14/2015 01:46 PM, Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> writes: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> On 01/13/2015 07:43 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>> Wanted to share my thoughts on where I think Gentoo should go, in |
| 9 |
> >>> terms of direction. Would love to hear your thoughts. |
| 10 |
> >>> |
| 11 |
> >>> http://dberkholz.com/2015/01/13/gentoo-needs-focus-to-stay-relevant/ |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> I think that improved binary package support will allow Gentoo to |
| 15 |
> >> compete with binary distros, making Gentoo applicable to a much |
| 16 |
> >> wider audience. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > As far as I understand we should focus on something that other |
| 19 |
> > distros fail at. (I'm not saying we should ignore binary package |
| 20 |
> > support, but definitely it's place is not in top-3.) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Well, maybe you could say that other distros fail at providing an |
| 23 |
> extremely flexible build-system to feed their binary package |
| 24 |
> repositories? If you look at it this way, Gentoo's missing piece is |
| 25 |
> the binary package repository support. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Thanks, |
| 28 |
> Zac |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yes, while maybe not a top 3,, at least a top 5. It is definitely a good |
| 32 |
one to accomplish. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Better binary support will improve production use in multi-system |
| 35 |
environments, making maintenance much easier and Gentoo a much more |
| 36 |
attractive option. Both increasing our user base, and most likely, |
| 37 |
contributing members, even if they are not devs. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives