On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:02:03 +0300 "Alon Bar-Lev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/23/08, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > How do you not stopping me if you don't provide the option? Strange... > I may miss something.
You are entirely free to use other things, or to implement the option yourself as you see fit. > > 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. > > Which "hell of a better job" solution have you thought about? I am > truly interested. If you're looking to centrally administer lots of systems, you should be able to run a single package manager command to do the appropriate package builds locally and then push the generated content onto every managed system just like that. Screwing around with manually building binaries and then finding some way of deploying them using a local package manager on large numbers of machines is a waste. > > 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. > > Did not say anything... I am here it suggest something... > But at least Gentoo initiators provided some tools, they are not > perfect, but at least they provide a solution until better can be > implemented. So you're looking for a knife, but you're happy with a gerbil because although it can't cut your steak, it can eat your lettuce. > > Uh... I'm not forcing anything. You can do both kinds of testing > > quite easily using Paludis. > > How? Can you please tell me how you do white test without using > "ebuild" command, and without modify the ebuild file before each test > (so there will be no leftovers)? You suspend and resume the build at the appropriate points. > BTW: How do you change USE flag on command line: You don't. > USE="X" paludis --install --preserve-world package > Does not set use X for this command. > > This important if you want to test all USE combinations without > modifying persistant configuration. so you can always return to known > baseline after tests. You maintain different configuration sets for testing. Note that testing all combinations is, in general, insane. > If I understand correctly, even if I write patch for it you won't > merge it as you think this feature should not be available... If you write a good patch it would get merged, because it wouldn't cost anything for everyone else to add such functionality. > > Uh... So? What's Paludis on Gentoo got to do with Paludis on > > Exherbo? > > As you can see, none of the feature we discuss are distribution > specific. On both systems you won't be able to do white test easily, > on both you won't be able to distribute packages from compiler to > stations, I guess the cross compile stuff will be solved somehow not > as part of the package manager (crossdev script like). Your notion of testing is very much Ebuild and Gentoo specific, and your notion of what Exherbo is trying to deliver just now is extremely wrong... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
