lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Philipp Riegger <li...@anderedomain.de> > wrote: >> See also the discussion about mixing package managers >> between Gentoo and Sabayon. I do not want these problems. > > incorrect. Give it a spin ;) > Problems we have were *only* related to Portage world file handling, > fixed some time ago. I am sorry to say that the issue reported here > doesn't seem to be valid. > Of course, if you mix both, you need to pay attention to not change USE > flags (for eg.) that trigger libraries compilation, but that's a known > binary-world problem.
So are we going to discuss this or not? To quote your own words back at you: > This is gentoo-dev and you are OFF TOPIC. > Next time, please post Sabayon specific stuff on our ML/com. channels. ... *If* you want to promote entropy/equo (or other sabayon work) as a possible solution here, you should be open to discuss its shortcomings. If not, then you should refrain from bringing it up again. To get back on topic: I think portage's current binary support works reasonably well, based on some experience I have with building packages for a second, slower machine. But I can see there are shortcomings, mainly in the described problem of storing multiple versions of a binpkg (with different useflags etc.). I agree with Duncan that we do not want a change of focus away from being a source-based distribution, but then that is not a change you would be able to "sell" to the current developers anyway. That said, there could very well be a Gentoo project, or people contributing to portage development, to try and improve binary package support. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison ______________________________________________________
