Christophe Poncy <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> We want the source and binary to be closely associated, >> but whether they form one downloadable package or two >> seems like an implementation detail. Since many people >> would rather get only the binary, I think it is more convenient >> if they are two downloadable packages rather than one. >> >> [...] >> >> To require everyone installing the system build it from source >> would be inconvenient, and I see no benefit from it. >> >> For packages, we separate building from installation. >> We should do this for the whole system as well. >> It would be good to be able to built binaries for the entire system >> with `./configure; make', but installation would be a separate step. >> > > With a source-based distribution, each software is tied in one single > package, I mean the source, that you can customize according to your > needs with the USE flags (I am thinking about portage, a package > management system) > This approach seems more elegant and more powerful to me than binary > distributions in which you have to deal with several package for the > same software (emacs witout X, Emacs with X, Emacs with gtk+ for > exemple) <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
That sort of things already exist Archlinux and have it's free side Parabola ... on first boot you've got a $ and then with pacman (the package manager) you install your wish from Emacs out of X to the rest. With the pkgbuilds, you design your own packages as you wish. Well /me stop to speak on that subject before beeing tax of commercials beeings. But the fact is that wikipedia which are not very cool have accept to list Parabola here :: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle Have fun & be free! -- Aurelien - Animateur P@m-Sarte http://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Aurelien Free Software & Zen Minimalism Hactivist Fight for your freedom rights! Join FSF.org Fully Free Operating System at GNU.org
