On 1/2/07, John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only benefit I can see portage having is that you get to compile it yourself. This is also the first step of why it is inferior. All the other reasons why it is inferior stem from that.
Wouldn't it be a benefit that you get to compile it yourself? The non-benefit is that you *have* to compile it yourself. I have two thoughts about this: 1) I really wish that more packages were available pre-compiled in portage. 2) It really doesn't matter, though. I mean, c'mon, how much hassle is it to compile a new program from source? A couple of days ago I installed GnuCash, so I thought that'd be a nice test. I recompiled it just now. A simple command: 'emerge gnucash' (though I put 'time' before it). It took 28 minutes and 25 seconds. Is that really so bad? When's the last time you decided you needed GnuCash and damn it all you need it NOW! Or any package? Anything that's going to take much longer than that will have a precompiled binary available. I can't give a fair comparison of apt to portage, since I'm really not familiar with apt. I've heard it's great. But I definitely don't see what people have against portage. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
