| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:42:54PM +0100, bn wrote: |
| 5 |
> So, I would really want to understand where the Gentoo flexibility beats |
| 6 |
> down a binary distro. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Don't get me wrong -I like Gentoo. Really. But the claim that a binary |
| 9 |
> distro is "unfixable" just because I had someone compiling it for me |
| 10 |
> instead of having emerge doing the job, looks odd to me. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
For me, one big difference is in our use flags. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Binary distros have to force you to install packages with all of their |
| 15 |
dependencies, but that is not required on gentoo since you can select |
| 16 |
which features you want to support. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Another difference is that, since you are compiling everything from |
| 19 |
source, with the correct CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS settings in make.conf, you |
| 20 |
can optimize the binaries you produce to take full advantage of your |
| 21 |
processor, which you can't do on a binary distro since everything is |
| 22 |
already compiled for you. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
- -- |
| 25 |
William Hubbs |
| 26 |
gentoo accessibility team lead |
| 27 |
williamh@g.o |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRlvYACgkQblQW9DDEZThkyQCfc7F/1/rGuhVFq2xxtb57fmc7 |
| 32 |
AT4AnRQSLghiBHkREKly3le7rGN8fYsA |
| 33 |
=z+CH |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives