| 1 |
>> > So it really does come down to portage after all. Portage has a hard |
| 2 |
>> > dependency on bash. portage is intimately wrapped up in the linux way of |
| 3 |
>> > doing things. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Right, we have to say Bash. To be exact Bash is GNU not Linux. I |
| 6 |
>> genarally say Linux not Gnu-Linux. However in this case the difference |
| 7 |
>> matters. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/ |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I fail to see how this is relevant. Portage requires bash, not sh. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Did I say sh? It matters that portage depends on bash not on linux. |
| 14 |
Bash is available on Win and Mac. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> So you don't work at a Tier 1 ISP then? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Definitly not. I rather work at the other end, the desktop. Never seen |
| 19 |
anything bigger then a PC. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I never said porting portage could not be done, I said it would be hard work. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It is challenging, but not to difficult so far. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I don't see the point of portage on FreeBSD frankly, considering the general |
| 26 |
> use-case where FreeBSD shines. ports is more than adequate for that and I |
| 27 |
> don't need the maintenance overhead of portage on machines requiring weekly |
| 28 |
> updates. I don't build embedded systems or need highly customized OSes. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I wouldn't port it to BSD either. If I want to reach many people I |
| 32 |
still have to start with windows. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> In fact, portage is complete overkill and I refuse to allow it to be deployed |
| 35 |
> at work. Check my posting history for the rationale behind this. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
What is gentoo if you substract portage? I am courious now. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Al |
Archives