Arch Linux Wiki's Gentoo versus Arch comparsion

[Shining Arcanine]

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc ... ons#Gentoo

Both Arch Linux and Gentoo Linux are rolling release systems, which means that packages become available to the distribution a short time after they are released upstream. Gentoo packages are built directly from source code while official Arch packages are pre-built binaries. This makes Arch Linux quicker to build or update the system, and allows Gentoo Linux to be more readily customizable. The build system for Gentoo is "global"; offering compile options that affect packages system-wide via USE flags. In comparison, the Arch Build System is targeted at building individual packages. Arch supports i686, x86_64, and ppc while Gentoo covers x86, ppc, sparc, alpha, amd64, mips, hppa, and itanium architectures. Because both the Gentoo and Arch installations only install a base system, both are considered to be highly customizable. Gentoo users will generally feel quite comfortable with most aspects of Arch.

It says that Gentoo's build system only has options on a global basis while arch focuses on individual packages. I know that portage lets you configure use flags on a global and per package basis, so is claiming that portage is global while pacman is per package really an accurate claim to make?

[sera]

Obviously not but who cares.

[kernelOfTruth]

Obviously not but who cares.

++

BUT IMO they should correct that statement to better reflect the reality

[d2_racing]

In fact, they should change that.

[aidanjt]

Snipped it out.

[Shining Arcanine]

Obviously not but who cares.

++

BUT IMO they should correct that statement to better reflect the reality

I agree that they should correct it, but to be honest, if they correct it, I find it difficult to see what differentiates Arch Linux from Gentoo. The only difference I can see is that Arch Linux uses binaries, which is good if you want to have things up and running quickly, but that seems to contradict the statement that Arch Linux is highly customizable because as far as I can tell, you cannot specify whether or not you want support for feature x in a given application with Arch Linux while with Gentoo, you can.

[sera]

Who is the target of this section? A Gentoo user interested in Arch. Better they disqualify them self right away instead of stealing precious time of a Gentoo user.

[Ion Silverbolt]

I think it's a fair summary even if it isn't totally accurate. Gentoo really can be hard to describe sometimes. For example, everyone on this board most likely has a unique build of Gentoo including different arcitectures, use flags, packages, kernel configurations, etc. Ultimate flexibility best describes Gentoo IMO.

[eerok]

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc ... ons#Gentoo

It says that Gentoo's build system only has options on a global basis while arch focuses on individual packages. I know that portage lets you configure use flags on a global and per package basis, so is claiming that portage is global while pacman is per package really an accurate claim to make?

You didn't read that very well -- it's a specific comparison. Arch's build system has nothing like Gentoo's USE flags, so (one might reasonably conclude) it wouldn't be as easy to compile an entire system in Arch as it would be in Gentoo. No one is saying that you can't set compile flags for individual packages in Gentoo.

Building packages in Arch is pretty simple compared to other binary distros that I"ve tried, but -- as the comparison above suggests -- it's not like Gentoo. And yes, there are people who come to Arch who want to custom compile every package on their system. Really, these people would be better off coming to Gentoo.

[aidanjt]

You didn't read that very well -- it's a specific comparison. Arch's build system has nothing like Gentoo's USE flags, so (one might reasonably conclude) it wouldn't be as easy to compile an entire system in Arch as it would be in Gentoo. No one is saying that you can't set compile flags for individual packages in Gentoo.

It's not a specific comparison, the sentence states 'gentoo configuration is global', that's logically false as Gentoo's configuration is both global *and* local (note the and). global != global && local.

Anyway, mods are looking clarifying it now.

[Shining Arcanine]

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc ... ons#Gentoo

It says that Gentoo's build system only has options on a global basis while arch focuses on individual packages. I know that portage lets you configure use flags on a global and per package basis, so is claiming that portage is global while pacman is per package really an accurate claim to make?

You didn't read that very well -- it's a specific comparison. Arch's build system has nothing like Gentoo's USE flags, so (one might reasonably conclude) it wouldn't be as easy to compile an entire system in Arch as it would be in Gentoo. No one is saying that you can't set compile flags for individual packages in Gentoo.

Building packages in Arch is pretty simple compared to other binary distros that I"ve tried, but -- as the comparison above suggests -- it's not like Gentoo. And yes, there are people who come to Arch who want to custom compile every package on their system. Really, these people would be better off coming to Gentoo.

The language involved could be considered ambiguous, such that it could mean either what you are saying it means or what I am saying that it means. However, my understanding of it is the following:

G(Gentoo) while L(Arch)

Becomes:

G(Gentoo) & !L(Gentoo) & !G(Arch) & L(Arch)

What you propose makes it become:

G(Gentoo) & (!L(Gentoo) | L(Gentoo)) & (!G(Arch) | G(Arch)) & L(Arch)

Which makes no sense for the purposes of a comparison in a natural language.

*

G(x) means "x has a global configuration" and L(x) means "x has a local configuration". ! is the logical NOT operator, | is the logical OR operator and & is the logical AND operator.