From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H1D6M-0003s5-UE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:40:39 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l012anfA020429; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 02:36:49 GMT Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l012Y0hk013962 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 02:34:00 GMT Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so3001794pyi for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:34:00 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=GQyw4E7pJtyYiz4wSp0DwLdIu5npmtQ+x6Fg6LjokydWj1WDetNNjN7N+0wftsYe4RwXZvHtJxtkMU9HKK7BF92bkwbKCpGjEr9AjUjCVubMi7kfjLaGXijBT5te4bqwW7MTETMDrwXm/hmyfeZywnn3U8jivcSHNQ7aZCheuYY= Received: by 10.35.112.4 with SMTP id p4mr33371337pym.1167618840110; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.30.16 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:34:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <89646b4a0612311834o6a5928bcsaf0c6e57921a038c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:34:00 -0600 From: "Mike Myers" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? In-Reply-To: <4598668C.6000800@ep.mine.nu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_62240_10604878.1167618840041" References: <89646b4a0612241752i127b3c29iec9f88687085c6c@mail.gmail.com> <4597AA7A.2070302@planet.nl> <200612311341.12472.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <89646b4a0612311529p36468a62yebf35860f00da4b6@mail.gmail.com> <89646b4a0612311701q5b705e09n425c9c8e5a01a4c9@mail.gmail.com> <4598668C.6000800@ep.mine.nu> X-Archives-Salt: 522836ac-426b-4e5a-bdf8-16b02d8af6a7 X-Archives-Hash: e349e456d1547169489f1f3633b0358e ------=_Part_62240_10604878.1167618840041 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 12/31/06, Mark Kirkwood wrote:Mike Myers wrote: > > I just wanted to add something to the original post. > > > > I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their updating > > system is exactly like what I was asking about. Basically, there's > > package updates, and then there's distro updates. Why is it > > unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this? I think it would > > help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is important. > > While this is true, one of the differentiating points of Gentoo is > precisely the build-from-source idea (there are plenty of binary update > distros out there). I'm not trying to suggest that Gentoo should go to a binary distro or anything like that. Besides, it's easy enough to just use a binary package server if that's what one needs. I'm just wondering why there isn't some kind of update management system to like, differentiate minor updates like firefox 1.5.0.5 to firefox 1.5.0.7 and major ones like, y'know, gcc 3.4.4 to 4+? The way it is now, they're all lumped together like one big update. The lack of such a system might make it easier for the devs.. but this is a pain in the ass for the users when they run into a problem like this unexpectedly. It's even worse when that user is managing several Gentoo machines. This kind of thing does not scale at all. One other thing - to actually do what you are suggesting requires a fair > number of extra volunteers to maintain these package updates. Now I'm > not saying its not possible, or even a bad idea mind - just wore work... > and maybe that effort might be better spent on keeping the current > momentum and quality of Gentoo as it is (or improving it)... > > Cheers > > Mark > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > I don't see why it would take that much work. If the tree was versioned, then the profile could be more significant with what was updated. Like, in the ebuild it could have a single additional entry for a minimum profile. Then, that user won't have to deal with that update until they update their profile. I'm sure there's other ways of doing that, but from what I've seen of portage and it's scripts, it is quite flexible for changes such as this. If anything, this could just be a gradual addition to new scripts instead of editing each and every ebuild. Whatever the solution is if there is going to be one at all should not be a complicated one, or it would defeat the purpose altogether. On 12/31/06, Neil Walker wrote: > > Mike Myers wrote: > > I just wanted to add something to the original post. > > > > I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their > > updating system is exactly like what I was asking about. Basically, > > there's package updates, and then there's distro updates. Why is it > > unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this? I think it would > > help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is important. > If Debian does what you want then why not go with it? What would be the > point in making Gentoo like Debian? Gentoo offers a different approach > which many of us like. It's all about choice - if you like Debian, > choose it - but don't expect Gentoo to turn into a Debian clone. It's > not going to happen. > > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > The update system is the -only- nice thing about it over Gentoo. Debian is nowhere near Gentoo when it comes to everything else (especially docs). I don't think suggesting a single feature that another distro has and putting into Gentoo is trying to make it a clone. I'm just asking for a relief from having to constantly worry if updating something out of the 300 packages that need updated is going to break something, and not having to make sure etc-update isn't going to destroy my custom configs afterwards. If it wasn't for that, Gentoo would be perfect. I'm sure there's got to be others that would agree. ------=_Part_62240_10604878.1167618840041 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/31/06, Mark Kirkwood < markir@paradise.net.nz> wrote:Mike Myers wrote:
> I just wanted to add something to the original post.
>
> I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their updating
> system is exactly like what I was asking about.  Basically, there's
> package updates, and then there's distro updates.  Why is it
> unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this?  I think it would
> help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is important.

While this is true, one of the differentiating points of Gentoo is
precisely the build-from-source idea (there are plenty of binary update
distros out there).

I'm not trying to suggest that Gentoo should go to a binary distro or anything like that.  Besides, it's easy enough to just use a binary package server if that's what one needs.  I'm just wondering why there isn't some kind of update management system to like, differentiate minor updates like firefox 1.5.0.5 to firefox 1.5.0.7 and major ones like, y'know, gcc 3.4.4 to 4+?  The way it is now, they're all lumped together like one big update.  The lack of such a system might make it easier for the devs.. but this is a pain in the ass for the users when they run into a problem like this unexpectedly.  It's even worse when that user is managing several Gentoo machines.  This kind of thing does not scale at all. 
 

One other thing - to actually do what you are suggesting requires a fair
number of extra volunteers to maintain these package updates. Now I'm
not saying its not possible, or even a bad idea mind - just wore work...
and maybe that effort might be better spent on keeping the current
momentum and quality of Gentoo as it is (or improving it)...

Cheers

Mark
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

I don't see why it would take that much work.  If the tree was versioned, then the profile could be more significant with what was updated.  Like, in the ebuild it could have a single additional entry for a minimum profile.  Then, that user won't have to deal with that update until they update their profile.  I'm sure there's other ways of doing that, but from what I've seen of portage and it's scripts, it is quite flexible for changes such as this.  If anything, this could just be a gradual addition to new scripts instead of editing each and every ebuild.  Whatever the solution is if there is going to be one at all should not be a complicated one, or it would defeat the purpose altogether.


On 12/31/06, Neil Walker <neil@ep.mine.nu> wrote:
Mike Myers wrote:
> I just wanted to add something to the original post.
>
> I've recently began experimenting with Debian and noticed their
> updating system is exactly like what I was asking about.  Basically,
> there's package updates, and then there's distro updates.  Why is it
> unreasonable for Gentoo to have something like this?  I think it would
> help Gentoo a lot in the server market, where scalability is important.
If Debian does what you want then why not go with it?  What would be the
point in making Gentoo like Debian? Gentoo offers a different approach
which many of us like.  It's all about choice - if you like Debian,
choose it - but don't expect Gentoo to turn into a Debian clone. It's
not going to happen.


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



The update system is the -only- nice thing about it over Gentoo.  Debian is nowhere near Gentoo when it comes to everything else (especially docs).  I don't think suggesting a single feature that another distro has and putting into Gentoo is trying to make it a clone.  I'm just asking for a relief from having to constantly worry if updating something out of the 300 packages that need updated is going to break something, and not having to make sure etc-update isn't going to destroy my custom configs afterwards.  If it wasn't for that, Gentoo would be perfect.  I'm sure there's got to be others that would agree.
------=_Part_62240_10604878.1167618840041-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list