| 1 |
On 12/27/06, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Mike Myers <fluffymikey <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I think I like your idea better, about distributing binaries. Do you |
| 7 |
> know if |
| 8 |
> something like this is being worked on? I'm certain that a common method |
| 9 |
> to |
| 10 |
> this, like what you're saying, would allow Gentoo to become scalable to |
| 11 |
> the |
| 12 |
> point of being easily usable on a large scale. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> It's a lot of work. I'll be pusing binaries to lots of systems, but, it |
| 16 |
> going |
| 17 |
> to take me months to get ready. I was hoping others with similar goals |
| 18 |
> would |
| 19 |
> 'band together' to come up with a solution that combines the needs for the |
| 20 |
> casual user as well as those of us that want to manage dozens to hundres |
| 21 |
> of Gentoo systems..... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I need to refine the idea, and my goal is mostly embedded gentoo sytems, |
| 24 |
> but, |
| 25 |
> they are very similar to gentoo-servers. Expanding the idea to |
| 26 |
> workstation, |
| 27 |
> at least for core software, is not that difficult. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I do not intend to get into 'competiion' with the devs, particularly on |
| 30 |
> applications that are big, complex, or prone to breakage (OO).... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> It'd really be better to do this as a group, but, I've found little |
| 34 |
> interest, |
| 35 |
> most probably due to the fact that most folks are already bogged down with |
| 36 |
> their own ambitions. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> James |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> -- |
| 46 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I honestly believe there's a lack of interest in such thing because most |
| 51 |
Gentoo users use it as their home computer. The fact that Gentoo doesn't |
| 52 |
scale very well prevents that market from growing at all, and I think that's |
| 53 |
why there's a lack of interest in supporting such a thing. It's kind of |
| 54 |
like a chicken and egg thing. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I don't think setting something like this up would be competing with the |
| 57 |
devs, unless they already had something in mind, since a project like this |
| 58 |
would only be proxying packages and adding another package management layer |
| 59 |
to portage. I could be wrong though, I guess if you or whoever came up with |
| 60 |
a solution we would see. I don't have strong enough development skills to |
| 61 |
help handle something like that though, but I'd love to test it out. |
Archives