Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage?

["Mike Myers" <fluffymikey@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1503 bytes --]

On 12/31/06, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> 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 I might personally like what you are suggesting I think that the
> idea fails under the load of trying to get the community to agree on
> what use flags/compiler flags, etc. would be the standard that all
> these packages are built with. Do you make the binary packages small
> or do you make them full featured? Do you support AMD CPU flags?
> Intel? Both or neither somehow?
>
> Personally I think there are so many options in Gentoo that coming up
> with agreement on what to do will be pretty difficult.
>
> That said if a set of binary packages were out there I'd probably
> investigate using it for certain machines, but most likely never my
> personal desktop machine.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

I wasn't referring to the use of binary packages at all.  I was only
referring to how updates are managed (or lack thereof) in Gentoo.  What USE
flags and whatnot are set wouldn't need to be affected at all, I would
think.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1976 bytes --]