| 1 |
> Mike Myers wrote: |
| 2 |
> > I just wanted to add something to the original post. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their updating |
| 5 |
> > system is exactly like what I was asking about. Basically, there's |
| 6 |
> > package updates, and then there's distro updates. Why is it |
| 7 |
> > unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this? I think it would |
| 8 |
> > help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is important. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
While I might personally like what you are suggesting I think that the |
| 12 |
idea fails under the load of trying to get the community to agree on |
| 13 |
what use flags/compiler flags, etc. would be the standard that all |
| 14 |
these packages are built with. Do you make the binary packages small |
| 15 |
or do you make them full featured? Do you support AMD CPU flags? |
| 16 |
Intel? Both or neither somehow? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Personally I think there are so many options in Gentoo that coming up |
| 19 |
with agreement on what to do will be pretty difficult. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said if a set of binary packages were out there I'd probably |
| 22 |
investigate using it for certain machines, but most likely never my |
| 23 |
personal desktop machine. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Mark |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives