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

Re: portage vs yum

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

Perhaps my last post in the topic!   :)

to clarify:

loose integration
greater quantity of packages

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.)


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