* [gentoo-dev] Re: minimalistic emerge
@ 2014-08-09 3:07 99% ` Duncan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Duncan @ 2014-08-09 3:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
Igor posted on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:12:27 +0400 as excerpted:
> About 60% of all the packages are installed and work with nodep flag
> without any problems for years. Most of the maintainers just depend on
> new packages not knowing if it's necessary or not resulting in a really
> HUGE update that in the absolute majority of cases destabilize GENTOO
> making it not operational and WORSE than it was before. You then
> STABILIZE it again spending hours and then the story repeats itself.
>
> Experience show that out of 20 new dependencies pulled by emerge only 1
> is critical and really needed to assemble the target.
>
> Is there any option in emerge to pull MINIMUM packages to get the result
> -
> install the application you need, leaving everything else AS IS
> untouched and stable?
>
> I would rather prefer and many would agree to use this kind of install
> instead of a full system update by default.
>
> Is there any USE flag that can switch system to this kind of update
> instead of conventional? If no such USE flag, what about stabilize
> gentoo with STABILIZED flag implementation in make.conf?
>
> Whoever needs everything new - can continue fighting with nature,
> the rest of us who has a limited life span - well, they might go for
> STABILIZED flag and live happily ever after.
>
> What do you think?
The above reads to me like gentoo is an inappropriate distribution for
your use. Gentoo doesn't claim to be all things to all people, and
there's no shame for either gentoo or a user in a user switching to
something else if gentoo simply doesn't match their needs.
In general, gentoo strongly emphasizes a number of things, including:
1) Rolling updates. Install once, run for years doing frequent
incremental updates.
2) Staying /relatively/ current. For many packages, Gentoo removes older
versions from the tree relatively quickly, certainly compared to the
distros listed below, and once it's no longer in-tree, there's zero gentoo
support for it -- you're on your own.
3) Build from source. Gentoo does have rather limited binary-package
support, but it remains fairly rudimentary, and the general assumption is
that binary packages are locally built and distributed, not as part of
the distribution. (Tho at least in the past there have been binary-
package ISOs distributed, but without regular update and with Gentoo's
relatively rapid update cycle they're outdated rather quickly. I really
don't know if there's current binpkg ISOs available or not.)
3a) There are, however, some independent gentoo-based distros that are
binary-based, at least one of which allow more or less seamless switching
between gentoo's source-based ebuilds and their binary-based packages.
Tho I don't know of any long-term-support distros doing this.
Get outside of those norms and while gentoo may work, there's likely some
other distribution that will work better.
If you only want to update the minimum necessary, and in particular, if
you're keeping versions that have been removed from the tree, then
something with a *MUCH* slower update cadence, where people sticking to
versions that work for years at a time regardless of possible updates, is
far more likely to match your needs. Among the possibilities are:
Red Hat (RHEL) and clones: CentOS, Scientific Linux, Oracle's Linux
(forgot the name ATM).
Red Hat is the gold standard, very long term commercial support, IIRC 10
years, and very good community relations as they employ many of the
developers on a number of core Linux upstream projects. Oracle's Linux
is commercial too, and is said to undercut RH in price, but has rather
horrible community relations. CentOS and Scientific Linux more community
oriented and supported, free to install and update. CentOS is now
directly supported by Red Hat as a community version much like Fedora,
only unlike Fedora, CentOS is a direct RHEL clone and long-term
supported. Scientific Linux is an independent RHEL clone, I believe
primarily developed as the platform CERN standardizes on.
Debian: Stable and old-stable.
100% community distribution with an emphasis on free as in freedom.
Larger than most, certainly larger than gentoo. With a rather long
release cycle and stable and old-stable, the support term is extended,
but I don't believe it reaches that of Red Hat.
Since I strongly believe in both software freedom and in the free and
open source software community, this would probably be my choice if I
needed longer term version stability and support. (FWIW, Arch Linux
would probably be my choice for rapid-update, rolling-update, binary-
core, source-based extra packages, distro, but that's not the focus of
this thread and thus not on this list or mentioned elsewhere in this
post.)
Ubuntu LTS editions.
Quite popular, longer term commercial support available, but Ubuntu/
Canonical do sometimes have somewhat contentious community relations and
go their own way on some projects, with little non-Ubuntu/Canonical
uptake. I'm not sure of the support term but I think it's three years
full support on the LTS editions, 7-year extended.
SuSE: SLED/SLES.
I don't know so much about these. The OpenSuSE community edition seems
to be well received, but of course doesn't have the longer term support
of the commercial editions. Corporate ownership changed a few years ago
and I know little of the new owners, but they do appear to be continuing
active community involvement and project support (KDE, etc). Seems to be
more popular in Europe and especially Eastern Europe than in the US, tho
some US retailers have standardized on it for what amounts to locked-down
kiosk and register type systems with outsourced maintenance and
effectively zero local store user control.
Those are all binary distros. If you want from-source and are willing to
do more of your own support, there's
Linux From Scratch (LFS)
AFAIK this is 100% community and primarily consists of a maintained set
of instructions for doing your own builds from sources in the common LFS
context. It's thus less automated than gentoo, comparing to gentoo much
like gentoo compares to the binary distros. But since you're doing all
the building yourself, simply following the LFS instructions, you get to
choose what and when to update on your OWN schedule. To my knowledge,
there isn't a whole lot of support, but it doesn't really need it, since
it's primarily a set of build instructions. You'd be on your own in
terms of updates and security tracking, presumably being able to follow
the same instructions for newer versions of individual packages for
awhile, but at some point, you'd either migrate beyond the LFS context as
the instructions you originally followed would no longer apply, or you'd
need to grab a new set of release instructions and install again, using
them.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2014-08-08 13:12 [gentoo-dev] minimalistic emerge Igor
2014-08-09 3:07 99% ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox