[linux-elitists] Gentoo Linux Releases 2004.3 (fwd from email@example.com)
Wed Nov 17 17:02:14 PST 2004
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 19:47, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2004, Aaron Sherman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > gentoo will probably develop (may already have for all I know) hybrid
> > schemes around package management that allow the flexibility of their
> > current model and the transactionness of extant binary-based models, but
> > until that happens I'm not sure that they have a place in most
> > "enterprise" environments (that is, until you can run a level 1
> > diagnostic, it's now allowed on the bridge).
> I'm not sure what you mean by transactionness
I meant that files are tracked such that they can be removed or
upgraded. If gentoo's ports port can do that, then I was mistaken,
> This is why saying "well, you can just build from source on Debian
> too" is not a full answer:
I don't know Debian, as I'm a Red Hat guy, but I would imagine that you
can take the source for a package and build from it just as you can with
Red Hat, and with Red Hat (or Mandrake or whatever else uses RPM), you
can always re-package your source tree as a reproducible SRPM by doing
an "rpmbuild -ba" (that builds the binary packages and then re-builds
the SRPM from what you just used).
I do this all the time at work, when we want "Red Hat's X, but with Y
and without Z."
> I'd really like if rather than just producing tarballs they could
> produce RPMS which carry dependency information with them, and if
> there was a more complete selection of GRP binaries.
That is what I meant about the logical progression of hybrid packaging
options. Of course, you can always build the RPMS on the fly from a
tar-ball... that's one way to go.
More information about the linux-elitists