portage vs yum

[Jima]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Thufir wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:32:47 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> It isn't the ebuilds per se that are less integrated, but the gentoo
>> packaging.
>
> Perhaps my last post in the topic!   :)
>
> to clarify:
>
> gentoo:
> loose integration
> greater quantity of packages
>
> fedora:
> tight integration
> lesser quantity of packages
>
> However, if it's about the same quantity of labor to create an e-build as
> to create an RPM, I'm not sure *why* the quantity of ebuilds is greater...
>
> So, isn't some form of, perhaps, tightly integrated build-from source
> type packaging, the best of both worlds?  (binaries for GNOME, and so
> forth, at request a la sabayon.)

  Whether the packages are binary or built-from-source is irrelevant.  We 
could, if we wanted (for some reason), make lots of not-well-integrated 
RPMs, achieving the "we have all the packages in teh world!!!11" goal. 
Alas, the packaging quality wouldn't be much to write home about, and we'd 
probably have to relax or kill the packaging guidelines.
  What takes the hard work in Fedora is the tight integration.  It has 
nothing to do with the nature of RPMs or yum.  So, for your example, by 
providing "tightly integrated build-from source type packaging," we'd gain 
*nothing*.  It'd take just as much work to write a tightly-integrated 
ebuild as it would to write a tightly-integrated spec.  (I think, anyway 
-- people with more advanced experience with ebuilds are welcome to 
correct me if I'm mistaken.)

      Jima