[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: portage vs yum

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:18:01PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:05:54PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > * find out the build and runtime dependencies by parsing the spec files
> >   and construct a tree of needed build
> Run-time dependencies are mostly calculated and can't be extracted
> from the spec files.

Indeed, I was wrong. As soon as a source package needs a build time 
dependency that has run time dependency this doesn't work anymore.
Of course there would still be a minimal build root in any case since
there are build time dependencies between bash, make, gcc, coreutils
that are unworkable, even with run-time rpm dependencies.

I am wondering whether it would work if runtime requirements of just
built packages are also considered.

> > * gento follows upstream even more closely than fedora, there is no
> >   real integration
> Is this an advantage? ;-)  A distro that does not integrate packages
> to make it consistent?  That's how I read this, maybe you meant to
> say something different...

I am not saying that it is good or bad, I am stating a fact.

> > One advantage of Fedora over gentoo or debian is that there are paid
> > redhat people for the maintainance of the most difficult and moving 
> > packages, like firefox, gcc, kernel, glibc, and so on....
> At least you discovered one advantage so far ;-).

In all my mail I didn't tried to weight fedora against gentoo, I tried
to disambiguate what the real differences are.

If you really want to know, I personnally prefer fedora, that's why I 
participate in fedora, and there are many reasons for that that are not
about package availability, ease to write a package nor package 
integration. Still for some uses gentoo is nice, not for mine and maybe
the gentoo community is nice, but I like the Fedora (with redhat) 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]