| 1 |
On 12/31/06, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > Mike Myers wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I just wanted to add something to the original post. |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their |
| 7 |
> updating |
| 8 |
> > > system is exactly like what I was asking about. Basically, there's |
| 9 |
> > > package updates, and then there's distro updates. Why is it |
| 10 |
> > > unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this? I think it would |
| 11 |
> > > help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is |
| 12 |
> important. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> While I might personally like what you are suggesting I think that the |
| 16 |
> idea fails under the load of trying to get the community to agree on |
| 17 |
> what use flags/compiler flags, etc. would be the standard that all |
| 18 |
> these packages are built with. Do you make the binary packages small |
| 19 |
> or do you make them full featured? Do you support AMD CPU flags? |
| 20 |
> Intel? Both or neither somehow? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Personally I think there are so many options in Gentoo that coming up |
| 23 |
> with agreement on what to do will be pretty difficult. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> That said if a set of binary packages were out there I'd probably |
| 26 |
> investigate using it for certain machines, but most likely never my |
| 27 |
> personal desktop machine. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Cheers, |
| 30 |
> Mark |
| 31 |
> -- |
| 32 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I wasn't referring to the use of binary packages at all. I was only |
| 37 |
referring to how updates are managed (or lack thereof) in Gentoo. What USE |
| 38 |
flags and whatnot are set wouldn't need to be affected at all, I would |
| 39 |
think. |
Archives