On Fri, 23 May 2008 09:35:19 +0300 "Alon Bar-Lev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/23/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So how do you manage large network with paludis? > > > You compile from sources at every endpoint? > > > Say you have 1000 workstations with different applications > > > installed at large groups, do you expect network admin to > > > compile each package over and over on all workstations? > > > > > > No, I expect them to use system images. And just install every > > application everywhere, since disk space is cheap. > > It is great that package manager forces a specific solution. > But unfortunately there are some different views and I don't > understand why you force a specific solution (network implementation).
We don't. Do whatever you want to do. No-one's going to stop you, even when what you do is really really bad. Honestly, if we're going to solve the "lots of systems" problem at some point, we're going to do a hell of a better job of it than "have a package manager on every system and install from binaries on every system". But it's not been a priority for anyone. > Looking at large scale installation is somewhat you did not do. The > quickpkg provides good solution for this, you can learn from its > motivation, as it provide the laking link that is needed for large > distribution of packager output. If you seriously think that anything Gentoo provides is a "good solution" for large scale deployment, you need to work with real good solutions until you realise that doing what you're describing is a really bad way of managing anything. > > Uh, the correct thing to verify is the process as a whole. > > The right answer can be given even if the logic of ones though is > wrong. If we go into details, there are white box checks and black box > checks, you are forcing developers to use black box only, while the > white box tests are the ones that finds most of bugs. Uh... I'm not forcing anything. You can do both kinds of testing quite easily using Paludis. > Again, you force your QA view on users, although it may be incorrect, > without providing the ability of users to use the process the choose. I also don't provide a "remove glibc from / without asking anyone" option... > Had you said that you don't provide phases as it complex for you to do > this, I would have understood, but if you do this just to force your > (wrongly) view of QA management, I think this is incorrect. It's not complex at all... It's just that no-one's done it because it isn't an essential or especially useful feature and won't become one no matter how many times you say it is. > > Why would it make migration any easier? You might as well install > > dselect for all the difference it would make... > > Package management is the major components, as you can see from our > discussion. Uh... So? What's Paludis on Gentoo got to do with Paludis on Exherbo? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
