On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Beber wrote: > So, do you guys plan to implement a such thing ? That's one of the > features that is mostly missing imho. The principal miss in on client > side as I have tools to manage packages but would like to not have too > much specific scripts on client side.
I like the way it done in OpenEmbedded. You have the tree of recipes (think of portage tree) and bunch of targets. For each target BitBake can generate binary release and package feed. Client package management is lightweight and does not require BitBake, recipes tree and even python. At least this is my lame interpretation of how it works :) Maybe this "metadistribution" approach is cleaner than binary package support in emerge. If user wants to compile packages on the client, he uses portage. If not - he can setup build server for multiple targets and completely drop portage from client machines. The only thing client should know is feed url with full list of binary packages. And I do not think client should deal with USE flags - for large installations unification is the only sane way to scale.
