| 1 |
On Monday 01 January 2007 04:34, Mike Myers wrote: |
| 2 |
> The update system is the -only- nice thing about it over Gentoo. |
| 3 |
> Debian is nowhere near Gentoo when it comes to everything else |
| 4 |
> (especially docs). I don't think suggesting a single feature that |
| 5 |
> another distro has and putting into Gentoo is trying to make it a |
| 6 |
> clone. I'm just asking for a relief from having to constantly worry |
| 7 |
> if updating something out of the 300 packages that need updated is |
| 8 |
> going to break something, and not having to make sure etc-update |
| 9 |
> isn't going to destroy my custom configs afterwards. If it wasn't |
| 10 |
> for that, Gentoo would be perfect. I'm sure there's got to be others |
| 11 |
> that would agree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
At this point it might be helpful to revisit what gentoo really *is* in |
| 14 |
engineering terms |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Gentoo is not an off-the-shelf, commodity, we-do-everything-for-you and |
| 17 |
you don't have to think (much) distro, it's in a completely different |
| 18 |
class. The devs have given up the ability to configure things a certain |
| 19 |
way and handed that control over to you. You get increased |
| 20 |
customizability but have to pay the price of increased knowledge and |
| 21 |
responsibility, including that you get to keep both pieces when you |
| 22 |
break it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Red Hat and Ubuntu can do all these tests for you, the gentoo devs can't |
| 25 |
(except in some very broad cases like package-1.0 is config-file |
| 26 |
incompatible with package-2.x), so we gentoo-users have to do these |
| 27 |
tests ourselves. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Remember the old joke: "We can make it cheaply, quickly, correctly. Pick |
| 30 |
any two." You have a case like this, maybe it's time to just get over |
| 31 |
it :-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
alan |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives