[gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

Greetings all,

A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
surprised if it was all of them).

The Gentoo 1.4.1 release re-ignited my curiosity on this topic. Will
there be regular interim releases between major upgrades, or will
releases like these solely fix bugs?

If the latter, can a GRP ISO be created say, every two months? This
would only add ~500MB per architecture involved, since there wouldn't be
any need to archive the older versions of the ISO.

Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
of additional interest in the distribution.

What does everyone think?

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1456 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 11:59, Brad Laue wrote:
> Greetings all,
> 
> A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
> haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
> with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
> installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
> be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was all of them).
> 
> The Gentoo 1.4.1 release re-ignited my curiosity on this topic. Will
> there be regular interim releases between major upgrades, or will
> releases like these solely fix bugs?
> 
> If the latter, can a GRP ISO be created say, every two months? This
> would only add ~500MB per architecture involved, since there wouldn't be
> any need to archive the older versions of the ISO.
> 
> Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
> and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
> optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
> of additional interest in the distribution.
> 
> What does everyone think?

It sounds great, but I think we're battling now with a problem of us
taking up way too much space on our mirrors.  In fact, there is a thread
discussing the removal of the ISO images.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Since we are (probably) moving to having the GRPs themselves on the mirrors 
(and not ISOs), this is probably better accomplished by simply making new 
GRPs for every (major) release of commonly GRP'd packages and keeping them in 
a "current" directory.

On Monday 15 September 2003 03:59 pm, Brad Laue wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
> haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
> with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
> installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
> be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was all of them).
>
> The Gentoo 1.4.1 release re-ignited my curiosity on this topic. Will
> there be regular interim releases between major upgrades, or will
> releases like these solely fix bugs?
>
> If the latter, can a GRP ISO be created say, every two months? This
> would only add ~500MB per architecture involved, since there wouldn't be
> any need to archive the older versions of the ISO.
>
> Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
> and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
> optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
> of additional interest in the distribution.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Brad
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Ze5gZl/BHdU+lYMRAvLOAJ0YODT4ROaBn4Uy1EOMuQpaSTuX1wCeNzlG
Ux7ScHmXS8BRPC8jvACyRYE=
=iBEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2399 bytes --]

I like the idea of having a basic ISO as we do now, then having the GRP
packages on the mirrors in their respective release directory.  The
-current idea sounds pretty good to me, also.  We would of course want
to keep the portage snapshots in the release directories so they stay in
sync.

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 12:52, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Since we are (probably) moving to having the GRPs themselves on the mirrors 
> (and not ISOs), this is probably better accomplished by simply making new 
> GRPs for every (major) release of commonly GRP'd packages and keeping them in 
> a "current" directory.
> 
> On Monday 15 September 2003 03:59 pm, Brad Laue wrote:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
> > haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
> > with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
> > installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
> > be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
> > surprised if it was all of them).
> >
> > The Gentoo 1.4.1 release re-ignited my curiosity on this topic. Will
> > there be regular interim releases between major upgrades, or will
> > releases like these solely fix bugs?
> >
> > If the latter, can a GRP ISO be created say, every two months? This
> > would only add ‾500MB per architecture involved, since there wouldn't be
> > any need to archive the older versions of the ISO.
> >
> > Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
> > and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
> > optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
> > of additional interest in the distribution.
> >
> > What does everyone think?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> - -- 
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE/Ze5gZl/BHdU+lYMRAvLOAJ0YODT4ROaBn4Uy1EOMuQpaSTuX1wCeNzlG
> Ux7ScHmXS8BRPC8jvACyRYE=
> =iBEM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Games Team

Is your power animal a pengiun?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I like the idea of having a basic ISO as we do now, then having the GRP
> packages on the mirrors in their respective release directory.  The
> -current idea sounds pretty good to me, also.  We would of course want
> to keep the portage snapshots in the release directories so they stay in
> sync.

Me too, that method of implementing things makes it possible to simply
add a line to make.conf specifying the location of GRP packages on the
FTP servers.

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brian Jackson]

On Monday 15 September 2003 12:20 pm, Brad Laue wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I like the idea of having a basic ISO as we do now, then having the GRP
> > packages on the mirrors in their respective release directory.  The
> > -current idea sounds pretty good to me, also.  We would of course want
> > to keep the portage snapshots in the release directories so they stay in
> > sync.
> 
> Me too, that method of implementing things makes it possible to simply
> add a line to make.conf specifying the location of GRP packages on the
> FTP servers.

You mean like this:

PORTAGE_BINHOST="ftp://login:pass@grp.mirror.site/pub/grp/i686/athlon-xp/"
  This is the host from which portage will grab prebuilt-binary pack-
  ages.  The list is a single entry specifying the  full  address  of
  the  directory  serving  the  tbz2's for your system.  This is only
  used when running with the get binary  pkg  options  are  given  to
  emerge.  Review emerge(1) for more information.

--iggy

> 
> Brad
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 

-- 
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1831 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:59:23AM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
> haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
> with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
> installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
> be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
> surprised if it was all of them).

I'm going to be labeled as "not-user-friendly-bastard" on this one, but if
you have a user that GRP installs Gentoo, and then wants to GRP-update with
every release (and keeping in mind that drobbins want to increase the
release-frequency), I'd have to say that he should take a look at the binary
distributions.

Which brings the topic to:

> Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
> and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
> optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
> of additional interest in the distribution.

This is something that all distributions deliver: binary packages and an
"easy" way to source-compile packages but keep them in the database. If
Gentoo would go the same way, we are neglecting the source-based stuff.

We should not focus on GRP-after-installation. As I see it, GRP isn't even
the main installation method, but an option. If I am mistaken on this
subject, please say so, because I am writing everything with this in mind (I
am thinking of our handbook-to-come).

These are, ofcourse, my thoughts on the subject.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:48, Brian Jackson wrote:
> You mean like this:
> 
> PORTAGE_BINHOST="ftp://login:pass@grp.mirror.site/pub/grp/i686/athlon-xp/"
>   This is the host from which portage will grab prebuilt-binary pack-
>   ages.  The list is a single entry specifying the  full  address  of
>   the  directory  serving  the  tbz2's for your system.  This is only
>   used when running with the get binary  pkg  options  are  given  to
>   emerge.  Review emerge(1) for more information.
> 
> --iggy

Yep - but there aren't official GRP mirrors just yet, right?

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:04, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I'm going to be labeled as "not-user-friendly-bastard" on this one, but if
> you have a user that GRP installs Gentoo, and then wants to GRP-update with
> every release (and keeping in mind that drobbins want to increase the
> release-frequency), I'd have to say that he should take a look at the binary
> distributions.

I was going more for the manageability aspect - drop Gentoo in place
inside 30 minutes, update to the latest GRP packages, then begin
optimizing - I'd like to think of myself as an advanced user, and I'd
really find it traumatic to have to wait 56 hours for my Athlon XP to
rebuild from stage1 into GNOME 2.4 and get myself back to a functional
workstation.

All the benefits of being source-based remain, all the performance and
customizability aspects of portage, but now we have a fast/up-to-date
method of getting a system running.

> This is something that all distributions deliver: binary packages and an
> "easy" way to source-compile packages but keep them in the database. If
> Gentoo would go the same way, we are neglecting the source-based stuff.

How so, beyond what we currently do with GRP?

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Andrew Gaffney]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:59:23AM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> 
>>A concern of mine about many Linux distributions is that in the long
>>haul between binary releases of a distribution, the packages included
>>with the release can become quite old. In Gentoo's case, if one GRP
>>installed their system nine months from now and emerge -u'd, they would
>>be faced with a considerable number of packages to update (I wouldn't be
>>surprised if it was all of them).
> 
> 
> I'm going to be labeled as "not-user-friendly-bastard" on this one, but if
> you have a user that GRP installs Gentoo, and then wants to GRP-update with
> every release (and keeping in mind that drobbins want to increase the
> release-frequency), I'd have to say that he should take a look at the binary
> distributions.
> 
> Which brings the topic to:
> 
> 
>>Realising that Gentoo is of course a source-based distribution, quickly
>>and easily installing the latest and greatest by using emerge -k, then
>>optimizing by rebuilding incrementally has surely sparked a great deal
>>of additional interest in the distribution.
> 
> 
> This is something that all distributions deliver: binary packages and an
> "easy" way to source-compile packages but keep them in the database. If
> Gentoo would go the same way, we are neglecting the source-based stuff.
> 
> We should not focus on GRP-after-installation. As I see it, GRP isn't even
> the main installation method, but an option. If I am mistaken on this
> subject, please say so, because I am writing everything with this in mind (I
> am thinking of our handbook-to-come).

I completely agree with you on this one. GRP is nothing but a way to 
quickly get your system up and running so that you can use your system 
while you are re-compiling everything with your optimizations and USE flags.

If Gentoo is going to have binary packages available for *updates* then 
we might as well just get rid of portage and switch to RPM packages 
while we're at it :)

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2294 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:30:29PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> I was going more for the manageability aspect - drop Gentoo in place
> inside 30 minutes, update to the latest GRP packages, then begin
> optimizing - I'd like to think of myself as an advanced user, and I'd
> really find it traumatic to have to wait 56 hours for my Athlon XP to
> rebuild from stage1 into GNOME 2.4 and get myself back to a functional
> workstation.

I'm sure you've tried Debian or any other distribution then, because that's
exactly what they do. They provide you with a quick and easy installation of
binary packages. For the packages you want optimization, they provide an easy
way to create packages for it.

If I want my system to return to Gnome 2.4 after some crash, I use my
backups. If I install Gentoo, I know that I have to wait a certain amount of
time, but thats what I expect from a source-based distribution. If I want a
quick installation, I'll use a different distribution.
 
This is a harsh state of mind, but I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking
like this.

> > This is something that all distributions deliver: binary packages and an
> > "easy" way to source-compile packages but keep them in the database. If
> > Gentoo would go the same way, we are neglecting the source-based stuff.
> 
> How so, beyond what we currently do with GRP?

I dislike GRP too. I feel that it takes (development) resources from us that
could be invested in more innovative projects. I feel that GRP is an effort
to reach more users instead of focussing on what Gentoo really was about
several months back. 

I like to make the comparison with security-based projects. Their main goal
is to create a secure distribution/program. They will never try lowering down
that vision to get more people to use their distribution/program. 

With security, saying "no" is easy because it is a strong subject. With
source-based vs binary this is less easy.


I must say, this is a personal opinion that I do not integrate in my work for
Gentoo (just to set the record straight).

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> I completely agree with you on this one. GRP is nothing but a way to 
> quickly get your system up and running so that you can use your system 
> while you are re-compiling everything with your optimizations and USE flags.

In that case I use Knoppix :)

	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Jon Portnoy]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:39:07PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:30:29PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> > I was going more for the manageability aspect - drop Gentoo in place
> > inside 30 minutes, update to the latest GRP packages, then begin
> > optimizing - I'd like to think of myself as an advanced user, and I'd
> > really find it traumatic to have to wait 56 hours for my Athlon XP to
> > rebuild from stage1 into GNOME 2.4 and get myself back to a functional
> > workstation.
> 
> I'm sure you've tried Debian or any other distribution then, because that's
> exactly what they do. They provide you with a quick and easy installation of
> binary packages. For the packages you want optimization, they provide an easy
> way to create packages for it.
> 
> If I want my system to return to Gnome 2.4 after some crash, I use my
> backups. If I install Gentoo, I know that I have to wait a certain amount of
> time, but thats what I expect from a source-based distribution. If I want a
> quick installation, I'll use a different distribution.
>  
> This is a harsh state of mind, but I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking
> like this.
> 

Absolutely agreed.

I feel we should strive for being good at what we've always been good at 
rather than mediocre at everything.


-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:39, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I'm sure you've tried Debian or any other distribution then, because that's
> exactly what they do. They provide you with a quick and easy installation of
> binary packages. For the packages you want optimization, they provide an easy
> way to create packages for it.

Why would I try Debian? I use Gentoo because it has up-to-date packages
and feature-customizability. I don't like using shoddy backports and
questionable third party repositories, thankyouverymuch.

> I dislike GRP too. I feel that it takes (development) resources from us that
> could be invested in more innovative projects. I feel that GRP is an effort
> to reach more users instead of focussing on what Gentoo really was about
> several months back. 

That's a damaging state of mind. Wanting to adhere to one's original
goals is great, but it's resulted in the stagnation of every open-source
project which has done so rigidly.

Brad


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Jon Portnoy]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:05:09PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:39, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > I'm sure you've tried Debian or any other distribution then, because that's
> > exactly what they do. They provide you with a quick and easy installation of
> > binary packages. For the packages you want optimization, they provide an easy
> > way to create packages for it.
> 
> Why would I try Debian? I use Gentoo because it has up-to-date packages
> and feature-customizability. I don't like using shoddy backports and
> questionable third party repositories, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> > I dislike GRP too. I feel that it takes (development) resources from us that
> > could be invested in more innovative projects. I feel that GRP is an effort
> > to reach more users instead of focussing on what Gentoo really was about
> > several months back. 
> 
> That's a damaging state of mind. Wanting to adhere to one's original
> goals is great, but it's resulted in the stagnation of every open-source
> project which has done so rigidly.
> 

So you think we should strive to be a binary distribution?

How would sticking to our source-based model cause "stagnation"?

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2285 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:05:09PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> Why would I try Debian? I use Gentoo because it has up-to-date packages
> and feature-customizability. I don't like using shoddy backports and
> questionable third party repositories, thankyouverymuch.

We all like Gentoo for a number of reasons. I can very well give you a nice
text on what I like of Gentoo, but that's beside the point.

Gentoo's goal wasn't to provide its users with a fast installation method. If
you make an enumeration of all features that distinguishes Gentoo from any
other distribution, and you take out one feature at a time, you'll result in
"yet another distribution".
 
> > I dislike GRP too. I feel that it takes (development) resources from us that
> > could be invested in more innovative projects. I feel that GRP is an effort
> > to reach more users instead of focussing on what Gentoo really was about
> > several months back. 
> 
> That's a damaging state of mind. Wanting to adhere to one's original
> goals is great, but it's resulted in the stagnation of every open-source
> project which has done so rigidly.

Most Open Source projects that want to achieve the biggest number of users
resulted in becoming non-innovating projects. They all use formulae of which
they know that the users like. Gentoo's idea wasn't to use such formulae, but
to develop and innovate in the hope (and persist) that what it is doing is
innovative, new and fun. 

Adhering to your original goals is a primary goal: do you want to lose users
that started with Gentoo (because of what it promised originally) but now
drive off because Gentoo has "changed its mind"?

There is so much to develop without going "the binary way". Lots of
enhancement-requests were made. Several developers want to start with a
rewritten Portage (faster, cleaner, more secure and more manageable). Others
want to increase the stability and amount of ebuilds. Just check the
enhancementlist on bugs.gentoo.org. Do we really want to focus fully on
extending our (working) installation ?

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brad Laue]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:06, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > That's a damaging state of mind. Wanting to adhere to one's original
> > goals is great, but it's resulted in the stagnation of every open-source
> > project which has done so rigidly.
> > 
> 
> So you think we should strive to be a binary distribution?
> 
> How would sticking to our source-based model cause "stagnation"?

Binary distribution? Heck no

I'm not comfortable with people who want to stick with their roots -
I've seen too many examples of things not working out with that sort of
mentality.

The user representation apparent in #Gentoo on FreeNode seems to provide
an example of the increased interest from all sides in the distribution
since the 1.4 release.

Is this a result of a simple new version? Does the binary installation
method have no impact on that at all?

All I'm saying is, we have an existing set of resources we're spending
on GRP, and it wouldn't take much more to do a four-month update of
them, just to keep the desktop environments and certain other things
easy to install.

Gentoo remains a source-based distribution, just as FreeBSD over its
ten-year history has maintained source-code as the primary means of
updating and installing packages. It just gets a little more convenient
to install.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Philippe Lafoucrière]

No, but I love the idea. I can provide some bin packages if it needs to
!

Phil

> Yep - but there aren't official GRP mirrors just yet, right?
> 
> Brad



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Philippe Lafoucrière]

Gentoo is famous only for its ports, but also for the config files, and
some basic admin tools (such zope-config, and all *-config, etc.). 


On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 20:42, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:38:55PM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > I completely agree with you on this one. GRP is nothing but a way to 
> > quickly get your system up and running so that you can use your system 
> > while you are re-compiling everything with your optimizations and USE flags.
> 
> In that case I use Knoppix :)
> 
> 	Sven Vermeulen


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Philippe Lafoucrière]

> Binary distribution? Heck no

Gentoo would be a source + binary distrib, but prioring sources, not
binaries, so as FreeBSD. I cant wait some days to have a running KDE or
Gnome install on my laptop, even with distcc.

Don't be so close minded.

It won't be a debian, coz they don't provide bleeding edge pakcages
(except in sid -> unstable, which can be really unstable, believe me).


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Thomas Schweikle]

> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:06, Jon Portnoy wrote:
[...]
> Binary distribution? Heck no
>
> I'm not comfortable with people who want to stick with
> their roots - I've seen too many examples of things not
> working out with that sort of mentality.

What do you mean with "... stick with their roots". There are lots of 
scenarios I can think of in less than a minute your better off, with 
binaries.

I'd really prefer binaries for a lot of installations (just think you'll 
have to install a new package on about 2000 systems --- shall they all 
compile the package? What about if I have to make sure these are up and 
running again in, say 2 hours? Would you start a compile of KDE in this 
case (my PII/400/512MB needed 14h to compile all KDE stuff needed)? 
Binaries are installed in less than 30 minutes!

And what about this old laptop: 586/133/40MB? It is running fine with 
Gentoo, but compiling on this machine would take months (to be exact: 
_four_ months for base+X11+Mozilla+KDE). Your really better of in such 
cases compiling on some other, faster machine, transferring only binaries.

In my opinion this "... we are a source distribution -- we do not deliver 
binaries" is the false way doing things. We really _need_ both: sources 
and binaries. And I would really like to see Gentoo move a bit toward 
distributing binaries as well. Maybe RPM, maybe DEB. Portage should make 
it possible. Just have a look at FreeBSD: it is mainly a source 
distribution, but you can have binary packages for everything in the ports 
tree if you want.

It would really be nice if I could find all compiled packages as binary in 
some directory after compilation of the base distribution finished. Superb 
if I could define some flag somewhere telling Gentoo generating "RPM", 
"DEB", or "pkg" binary packages.

This way I get all the best of both worlds: binaries for those not having 
the time to compile all and everything from scratch, sources for those, 
who like to have an amazingly actual, up to date, and optimized system.

-- 
Thomas


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[donnie berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1139 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 18:15, Thomas Schweikle wrote:
> In my opinion this "... we are a source distribution -- we do not deliver 
> binaries" is the false way doing things. We really _need_ both: sources 
> and binaries. And I would really like to see Gentoo move a bit toward 
> distributing binaries as well. Maybe RPM, maybe DEB. Portage should make 
> it possible. Just have a look at FreeBSD: it is mainly a source 
> distribution, but you can have binary packages for everything in the ports 
> tree if you want.
> 
> It would really be nice if I could find all compiled packages as binary in 
> some directory after compilation of the base distribution finished. Superb 
> if I could define some flag somewhere telling Gentoo generating "RPM", 
> "DEB", or "pkg" binary packages.
> 
> This way I get all the best of both worlds: binaries for those not having 
> the time to compile all and everything from scratch, sources for those, 
> who like to have an amazingly actual, up to date, and optimized system.

Examine the FEATURES="buildpkg" documentation in make.conf, also emerge
--help for -b and -B options.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 807 bytes --]

On 09/15/03  donnie berkholz wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 18:15, Thomas Schweikle wrote:
> > It would really be nice if I could find all compiled packages as
> > binary in some directory after compilation of the base distribution
> > finished. Superb if I could define some flag somewhere telling
> > Gentoo generating "RPM", "DEB", or "pkg" binary packages.
...
> Examine the FEATURES="buildpkg" documentation in make.conf, also
> emerge--help for -b and -B options.
> 

Also portage has some rpm support but as nobody is using it it's status
is unknown (ebuild(1) mentions a "ebuild bla rpm" command).

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Blumenstein]

I would much prefer to have GRP of the packages mentioned in the GLSA,
so one could update his server really fast with the bug fixed packages.

So for every GLSA, generate a GRP, put it in some directory on the
mirrors and a Url with MD5 in the GLSA. The rotating DNS (or whatever 
bandwith friendly system) should be used there too to share the load 
between the mirrors.

Regarding the original idea, I agree with Sven Vermeulen's reply:


Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> 
> I'm going to be labeled as "not-user-friendly-bastard" on this one,
 > but if you have a user that GRP installs Gentoo, and then wants to
 > GRP-update with very release (and keeping in mind that drobbins
 > want to increase the release-frequency), I'd have to say that he
 > should take a look at the binary distributions.

-- 
   .".
   /V\   [web ] http://0x1337.net                 | Behind every great
  // \\  [pgp ] http://0x1337.net/0x1337-pgp.txt  | computer sits a
/(   )\ [geek] http://0x1337.net/0x1337-geek.txt | skinny, little geek.
  ^'~'^



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Matt Thrailkill]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:49, donnie berkholz wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 18:15, Thomas Schweikle wrote:
> > In my opinion this "... we are a source distribution -- we do not deliver 
> > binaries" is the false way doing things. We really _need_ both: sources 
> > and binaries. And I would really like to see Gentoo move a bit toward 
> > distributing binaries as well. Maybe RPM, maybe DEB. Portage should make 
> > it possible. Just have a look at FreeBSD: it is mainly a source 
> > distribution, but you can have binary packages for everything in the ports 
> > tree if you want.
> > 
> > It would really be nice if I could find all compiled packages as binary in 
> > some directory after compilation of the base distribution finished. Superb 
> > if I could define some flag somewhere telling Gentoo generating "RPM", 
> > "DEB", or "pkg" binary packages.
> > 
> > This way I get all the best of both worlds: binaries for those not having 
> > the time to compile all and everything from scratch, sources for those, 
> > who like to have an amazingly actual, up to date, and optimized system.
> 
> Examine the FEATURES="buildpkg" documentation in make.conf, also emerge
> --help for -b and -B options.

And so, because Portage really has good enough package support (I saw
someone mention a make.conf parameter for remote fetching, was that real
or suggested?), why not maybe have some people organize a side project
of building and hosting bins as companions to ebuilds?

Doing it doesn't take away from the source aspect... its not like you
have to make a compromise in any way for it to happen.

I already froze a Portage snapshot a while ago that I have my Gentoo
machines sync from, I've been thinking about figuring some way for a
script to traverse all the ebuilds in it and build them all.

I'm all for optional bins.  A la FreeBSD.  Portage and Gentoo were
inspired by FreeBSD, I think it us a good example to follow - they have
twice as many ports as Gentoo has ebuilds, and they have a system of
remotely installing bins.

It suppose it would take alot of resources to host bins to match
EVERYTHING in x86 as it moves forward... I'd be content with just bins
to match whatever Portage snapshot makes it into a release.  I
downloaded iso2 of 1.4.1, its already got some bins; just make more,
make them remotely fetchable.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Alexander Gretencord]

On Monday 15 September 2003 21:10, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 03:05:09PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote:
> > Why would I try Debian? I use Gentoo because it has up-to-date packages
> > and feature-customizability. I don't like using shoddy backports and
> > questionable third party repositories, thankyouverymuch.
> Gentoo's goal wasn't to provide its users with a fast installation method.
> If you make an enumeration of all features that distinguishes Gentoo from
> any other distribution, and you take out one feature at a time, you'll
> result in "yet another distribution".

Well I'm currently in the situation where I'd really like to get a gentoo 
installation up fast. I'm currently working as an intern and have been given 
a box with debian installed (woody). I'd really like to install gentoo but I 
obviously can't wait a day or so without being able to work on the machine 
(it's a Duron 750). So I'm stuck with debian.


Alex


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Brian Jackson]

On Monday 15 September 2003 01:18 pm, Brad Laue wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:48, Brian Jackson wrote:
> > You mean like this:
> > 
> > PORTAGE_BINHOST="ftp://login:pass@grp.mirror.site/pub/grp/i686/athlon-xp/"
> >   This is the host from which portage will grab prebuilt-binary pack-
> >   ages.  The list is a single entry specifying the  full  address  of
> >   the  directory  serving  the  tbz2's for your system.  This is only
> >   used when running with the get binary  pkg  options  are  given  to
> >   emerge.  Review emerge(1) for more information.
> > 
> > --iggy
> 
> Yep - but there aren't official GRP mirrors just yet, right?

not official, but there was a guy online who had a bunch of stuff setup, I'll 
see if I can track him down

--iggy

> 
> Brad
> 
> 

-- 
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 06:34:33PM +0200, Alexander Gretencord wrote:

> Well I'm currently in the situation where I'd really like to get a gentoo 
> installation up fast. I'm currently working as an intern and have been given 
> a box with debian installed (woody). I'd really like to install gentoo but I 
> obviously can't wait a day or so without being able to work on the machine 
> (it's a Duron 750). So I'm stuck with debian.

If you have enough free space, you can build and configure your gentoo
system in a chroot environment and then just switch over by moving
directories.

Bye, Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo 1.4.1 and GRP

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 04:20:33PM -0500, Brian Jackson wrote:
> > Yep - but there aren't official GRP mirrors just yet, right?
> 
> not official, but there was a guy online who had a bunch of stuff setup, I'll 
> see if I can track him down

I'm sure not all our current mirrors would appreciate another x Gb of extra
data to mirror...

	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]