sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Jayce^ <jason AT plug.org>
- Cc: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT go-nix.ca>, Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:29:41 -0000
I've nothing against binaries, or even the cache system we have. They
/are/ handy. However, ensuring that binary packages are 100% compatable
is something binary distros are built to do, not source distros.
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 17:51, Jayce^ wrote:
> On Sunday 03 August 2003 04:43 pm, Dufflebunk wrote:
> > A slightly related topic is that of binary packages for smgl. I am against
> > this, not for any practical reason though, but for the philisophical
> > reason
> > that smgl is a source distro. It's designed as such, and although
> > extending
> > to handle binary packages is quite possible, it would never be as good as
> > the current offerings in the binary world. Just as no mater how hard
> > binary
> > distros try, they are unable to make as good source based packages as
> > soucr
> > based distros have.
> >
> I can't quite agree with this. Binaries have a couple of good points.
> a) fast to install (this is great when you need a system up now, and can
> compile later)
> b) rescue. Not too long ago I had a box that went to hell during updates.
> *nothing* would compile anymore, and I couldnt' fix it. Finally the system
> was saved when a couple people let me grab their cached compiles, and I
> could
> "resurrect" them. Once those pieces were upgraded with binaries, I was
> able
> to doing my own rebuilds.
>
> Sure I want a source compile, and I want it optimized for my system, but if
> somebody has already done exactly that, I'll take their binary, no problem.
>
> --
> Jayce^
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Casey Harkins, 08/02/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Seth Woolley, 08/02/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Hamish Greig, 08/02/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Casey Harkins, 08/02/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Seth Woolley, 08/02/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Casey Harkins, 08/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Seth Woolley, 08/02/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Dufflebunk, 08/02/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Dufflebunk, 08/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Casey Harkins, 08/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Jayce^, 08/05/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Dufflebunk, 08/05/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Seth Woolley, 08/06/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Casey Harkins, 08/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Seth Woolley, 08/06/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal,
Dufflebunk, 08/05/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SourceMage Binary Grimoire Proposal, Dufflebunk, 08/03/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.