On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM M. J. Everitt <m.j.ever...@iee.org> wrote: > > > > If you can really present a decent argument for replicating the > > functionality of other distros like Debian, Arch, Ubuntu etc then let's > > here it. For now, the strength of Gentoo is being able to fully > customise a > > system to your own requirements, not being trapped by some distro > > maintainer's arbitrary choices. Play to your USP's and strengths rather > > than chasing rainbows .. > > > > Why do we support binary packages at all? Simple: compiling packages > is expensive, and if you happen to already have them compiled, fully > customized to your own requirements, then there is no point in > recompiling them. You're just spending a ton of resources to build > the exact same files you already have. > > The only change I'm suggesting is that portage could take all the > configuration you're already supplying, and then optionally go see if > somebody you trust has already built the package that meets your > requirements. If so, then it would be downloaded and installed, > otherwise it would just compile from source. > > You get the exact same files installed on your system either way. > I think this conversation is a bit off track. I'm not saying this isn't a great idea, but I think its very orthogonal to the binpkg format itself. For example, the binhost pkg index file can contain this metadata and portage can be designed to fetch the binpkg index metadata and do matching (afaik it already does this; it just needs extending with more metadata.) The binpkg format itself seems not too relevant to this. -A > > -- > Rich > >
