Max Arnold dixit (2010-01-29, 12:24): > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Beber wrote: > > So, do you guys plan to implement a such thing ? That's one of the > > features that is mostly missing imho. The principal miss in on > > client side as I have tools to manage packages but would like to not > > have too much specific scripts on client side. > > I like the way it done in OpenEmbedded. You have the tree of recipes > (think of portage tree) and bunch of targets. For each target BitBake > can generate binary release and package feed. Client package > management is lightweight and does not require BitBake, recipes tree > and even python. At least this is my lame interpretation of how it > works :) > > Maybe this "metadistribution" approach is cleaner than binary package > support in emerge. If user wants to compile packages on the client, he > uses portage. If not - he can setup build server for multiple targets > and completely drop portage from client machines. The only thing > client should know is feed url with full list of binary packages. And > I do not think client should deal with USE flags - for large > installations unification is the only sane way to scale.
I think something similar is very nicely done on R-Path based distributions (with "flavours" [1]). Conary itself also seems to be a pretty well thought out package manager. [1] http://docs.rpath.com/conary/Conaryopedia/sect-flavors.html -- [a]
