Jc García <jyo.garcia <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Often, the Arch linux documents give one a more robust background for > > reading up on issues/choices related to Gentoo. After all, Arch is > > based > > on Gentoo and their documents are often a good compliment for reading > > up on issues you face with Gentoo, OK, so you do not like the word "based", as I used it for a very loose meaning that the 2 distros, functionally are very similar. > Arch is NOT based on gentoo, ArchLinux is it's own thing, PKGBUILDS > for building, and pacman as package manager, and there's systemd which > is used there as default, on top of that, is the /bin and /sbin merge > in in /usr, so arch and gentoo are different and it's own thing each. > > particularly when abstracted to > > a general understanding of the needs you may have. That said, do not > > blindly follow Arch Linux documents to resolve gentoo issues. Since Gentoo started approximately 3 years before Arch-linux, no doubts it was significantly influenced by the same topological forces that give them both similar and unique charactersistics. Both are rolling distros. Both can be build up from sources, although Arch makes the binary install path the default for its (new) users, as well as recovery of binaries that get deleted or become corrupted. Both have mulitiple packages installation schemes (management of installing softwares (portage Palaudis Overlays) and (pacman, AUR, yaourt). Both distros provide a myriad of macanisms to build from sources, as well as maintain binaries. Both systems allow bleeding edge installation from source repositories, as well as stable software components. So both distros are considered, by most, to be source derived distros. Both distros where definately influenced by the BSD ports approach to software installation from sources. Both distros offer Systemd. Both Gentoo and Arch installations only include a base system, both are considered to be highly customizable. The notable difference is Arch has some of the best documataion of any linux distro; Gentoo struggles to document many key components. Arch Linux is the 8th most popular linux distro, whilst Gentoo, despite being 3 years older, is number 47, if you believe what various sites say. Granted, Arch is not a direct lineage Gentoo offspring as the readily availibility of binary packages for Arch, is the most differing characteristic, imho; they are very similar when compared to the myriad of Linux distros. BUT, the point was that often, Arch linux offers up very well written documentation that is often usable by gentoo users. Gentoo-User is more active than the Arch user group, imho, but I cannot directly attribute that to the excellent documentation system that Arch has, but it would seem to be a plausible explaination. Funtoo docs are sometimes useful, as it is a Gentoo derivative ? Pentoo, Sabayon (& others) gentoo_ish distros exist but the docs are not as well developed as Arch? So my apologies for not being intensively accruate on the exact nature of the Gentoo-Arch relationship. The point was so that the original poster could easily and readily find a documenation source to complement what the Gentoo community has; not a dissection of the origins, influences and syntax differences between Gentoo and any other distro. I mostly based my "attitude" about the origins of Arch from several very bright (BSD) folks that left Gentoo for Arch. From the beginning Arch catered quite a bit more to the needs of the poor and the noobs and those with a lower threshold for (admin) pain as compared to Gentoo. YMMV. > But since Arch packages are very vanilla as those of Gentoo, the Arch > documentation is a good source, but you have to be aware of the base > system differences. > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/partitioning sincerest apologies, "my liege", James
