On 12/31/06, Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
[email protected] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
--
[email protected] 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.
