binary repository

Discuss all artwork and development - Suggestions needed

Moderator: Moderators

ajez
The Blamed One
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 17:17
Location: Venezia - /dev/null
Contact:

Re: mmh

Post by ajez » Thu Jan 04, 2007 18:37

whilo wrote: The only advantage of a binary host left would be adding additional Gentoo packages not on the dvd easily without building them.
i disagree, using sabayon overlay developers can add new software, like they are doing. 8)
--
Core Beta/Site,Blog,Forum Admin
Image

sadyc
Baby Hen
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 21:43

Post by sadyc » Fri Jan 05, 2007 22:11

One more vote for the binary repository IF it doesn't slow down the current development of Sabayon.
I believe some people like more what Sabayon brings to the table, than its gentoo-compile-from-source heritage.

I, for example, value more the binary Sabayon than the "joy" of compiling stuff. After all, if I really feel the urge to compile something myself I can do that for most big distributions - the binaries are not created from thin air, you know.

PS: Some of us do enough compiling at work :)

Goatee
Sharecropper
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 16:15
Location: England, UK

Post by Goatee » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:25

if you can find a way to pay for it, yeah, or some way to hack apt to deal with binaries or something, sure. but the financial constraints prevent this from being viable at the moment

whilo
Simple Hen
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 21:16
Location: Mannheim - Germany

...

Post by whilo » Sat Jan 06, 2007 14:16

@Ajez:

binary packages have generally nothing to do with the overlay ;-)


In my opinion Sabayon is a really great distribution for Desktop users. Most friends of me who have tried to installed linux tried SuSE or lately Ubuntu to reduce all the hassle. Sabayon is even better here. It is a saner platform compared to SuSE, freedom and software management like, and is lot more fine tuned and feature complete than Ubuntu.

The big show stopper for Sabayon to be considered as a real(!) distribution is that you don't get binary packages and no immediate software fixes (SuSE and Debian/Ubuntu) have that. You can use the Gentoo base for that, but this is very uncomfortable compared to the general Sabayon experience.

1. Security issues can only be fixed by glsa-check. This means you have to compile new packages (not a too big issue, since they are usually not many) and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT: You don't get kernel fixes!!! This means that Sabayon is not safe in secure environments!

2. Binary packages, as mentioned above(!), have some problems, because:
- they can put an immense load on a central binhost server
- they have to be binary compatible with the underlaying Gentoo system

So simply putting up a binhost won't work. We have to add some features to portage (this should be done officially in Gentoo!) and we have to find a distributional method which is not based on central servers (see above)

I think we need to put together a small team of devs to work it out...

Cheers,
whilo

ajez
The Blamed One
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 17:17
Location: Venezia - /dev/null
Contact:

Re: ...

Post by ajez » Sat Jan 06, 2007 15:21

whilo wrote:@Ajez:

binary packages have generally nothing to do with the overlay ;-)


In my opinion Sabayon is a really great distribution for Desktop users. Most friends of me who have tried to installed linux tried SuSE or lately Ubuntu to reduce all the hassle. Sabayon is even better here. It is a saner platform compared to SuSE, freedom and software management like, and is lot more fine tuned and feature complete than Ubuntu.

The big show stopper for Sabayon to be considered as a real(!) distribution is that you don't get binary packages and no immediate software fixes (SuSE and Debian/Ubuntu) have that. You can use the Gentoo base for that, but this is very uncomfortable compared to the general Sabayon experience.

1. Security issues can only be fixed by glsa-check. This means you have to compile new packages (not a too big issue, since they are usually not many) and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT: You don't get kernel fixes!!! This means that Sabayon is not safe in secure environments!

2. Binary packages, as mentioned above(!), have some problems, because:
- they can put an immense load on a central binhost server
- they have to be binary compatible with the underlaying Gentoo system

So simply putting up a binhost won't work. We have to add some features to portage (this should be done officially in Gentoo!) and we have to find a distributional method which is not based on central servers (see above)

I think we need to put together a small team of devs to work it out...

Cheers,
whilo
the fact is that we are not big as ubuntu, suse, debian, redhat .. and i don't think that gentoo may accept to integrate binaries in portage (IMHO) .. gentoo is known as the distro U NEED TO COMPILE "YOURSELF" TO SUIT YOUR HARDWARE!! gentoo (always IMHO) would never be interested at binaries (except for big packages, like openoffice or firefox that takes ages to compile) ...

i think that until we are so few, without sponsor, binaries would not be part of sabayon...
--
Core Beta/Site,Blog,Forum Admin
Image

whilo
Simple Hen
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 21:16
Location: Mannheim - Germany

...

Post by whilo » Sat Jan 06, 2007 16:42

O.k. to make myself clear:

- Gentoo does not need to integrate binary packages, they simply need to add the feature that you may check the binary packages for your system first, before installing them...
And Gentoo has already binary package support. They simply need to improve it. It would simplify building distributions on top of Gentoo a lot. Gentoo itself keeps source based and won't be influenced!

- We are few, that is right, but that is nothing which should keep us from evaluating the technical effort and benefit. Adding binary package checks to portage should not be an immense project. I've already collected the necessary (IMHO) features here. The problem which I need to discuss here is the distributional method!

Cheers,
whilo

ajez
The Blamed One
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 17:17
Location: Venezia - /dev/null
Contact:

Re: ...

Post by ajez » Sat Jan 06, 2007 17:03

whilo wrote:O.k. to make myself clear:

- Gentoo does not need to integrate binary packages, they simply need to add the feature that you may check the binary packages for your system first, before installing them...
And Gentoo has already binary package support. They simply need to improve it. It would simplify building distributions on top of Gentoo a lot. Gentoo itself keeps source based and won't be influenced!

- We are few, that is right, but that is nothing which should keep us from evaluating the technical effort and benefit. Adding binary package checks to portage should not be an immense project. I've already collected the necessary (IMHO) features here. The problem which I need to discuss here is the distributional method!

Cheers,
whilo
File Server, P2P, BitTorrent ... i don't see other solutions, for now... u where thinking others?

u need to consider also:
-who compiles
-who tests compiled binaries
-who mantains the distribution method we'll ( eventually, if we'll do this) use for binaries
-who pays infrastructures and bandwidth

edit: whilo, i'm not against u, i'm only trying to focus also all pratical and ethical problems :)
--
Core Beta/Site,Blog,Forum Admin
Image

Post Reply