| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jhon987
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 297
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:08 pm Post subject: FreeBSD move to PKGNG, Should Gentoo be inspired once again? |
 |
|
So, I've read before somewhere that Gentoo's Portage was heavily inspired by FreeBSD ports system.
Nowadays, it's been something like 2.5 years since the "next generation" PKG (PKGNG) tool has been released and, in my experience, it really is working quite well. I think it adds quite a plus to F-BSD features since you can maintain a system with the best of both worlds - source and binary. Furthermore, in some way, this seems like the natural way of progression, i.e. moving from the "archaic", slower method of compiling to the speedy installing.
Now, as a Gentoo user, I know and love the advantages you get by compiling packages (IMO, those are mostly based on adding more features than improving performance) however, I do feel sometimes that in a lot of cases it might be a little redundant (sometimes I just want to test something without necessarily configuring and optimizing it).
The thing is (please correct me if I'm wrong here), Gentoo doesn't really supports binary installations. Unlike F-BSD, Gentoo only has about half the number of binary packages it has as source (see reference: http://www.iwillfolo.com/comparison-gentoo-vs-freebsd-tweak-tweak-little-star/3/) and I'm really not sure about these packages state as to how well are they tested and how often are they updated.
So what do you guys think, shouldn't Gentoo have more support for generic binary installations while keeping its ability to compile from source, or perhaps you see some drawbacks I don't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54241
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jhon987,
Prebuilt binaries come with all the disadvantages of a binary distro - mostly that someone else selected the feature you get.
Portage does support binary packages and I understand that improved binary support is in the works.
I rarely, if ever, use binaries that I have not built myself.
One of the big problems with sharing binaries is one of security.
How do you know what is in the binary?
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eccerr0r
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 9679
Location: almost Mile High in the USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The USE flags is what makes it hard to allow a lot of binary packages. The more the binary packages, the fewer possible USE flags that are acceptable on the machine else you'll be in dependency heck.
I'm not sure how well it would work to allow both USE flag modification and still allow arbitrary compilation along with binary packages.
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K/Radeon R7 250/24GB DDR3/256GB SSD
What am I supposed watching? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 11:04 am Post subject: Re:Should Gentoo be inspired once again |
|
|
| jhon987 wrote: | | So what do you guys think, shouldn't Gentoo have more support for generic binary installations while keeping its ability to compile from source, or perhaps you see some drawbacks I don't? |
It already does, ime (same page, 9 or 10 posts down. subj: FEATURES="buildpkg" / PKGDIR.)
You can use update for multi-binhost support, if that's what you mean; though I agree portage should have that, in general there are quite a few things we'd like from porcelain that aren't appropriate for plumbing. (So let's use scripts we can modify and extend easily.)
From the title, I thought someone else had noticed the incredibly-borked import of ports in the first place.
In that respect, the answer would be "yes"; specifically LIB_DEPEND (at minimum) which if it had been imported correctly in the first place, would have meant revdep-rebuild were only ever a backstop; not a necessity for every user, over a decade or more.
Multilib would be much easier to handle (properly: at the mangler level as well as at the bash level, avoiding the insanity) and we wouldn't have to specify the same thing in such an awkward manner, designed for scripting languages while pretending the above hole was acceptable.
But mainly we'd have been working at that level from the beginning, so we'd have developed many tools to address ABI breakage, years ago.
Letting go of the insane Gentoo bash house-"style" would save a lot of hassle as well.
ATM Gentoo is just an embarrassment in that respect.
| eccerr0r wrote: | | I'm not sure how well it would work to allow both USE flag modification and still allow arbitrary compilation along with binary packages. |
It works very well. cf: man emerge, specifically: --binpkg-respect-use |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhon987
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 297
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NeddySeagoon, security is definitely a good point I missed, though to my method, those binaries would be automatically built from original Gentoo ebuilds with a default generic use flag set which will mostly be covering the vast majority them.
eccerr0r, I thought just like you as well, yet seeing FreeBSD handling this quite well, I believe it's certainly viable.
steveL, yes, there is that option, but I don't think it says anywhere on the wiki where you can actually get those BINHOST urls - it gives the impression that this feature isn't really fully supported by Gentoo.
BTW sorry if my title mislead you...
Finally, please don't get me wrong guys, it's not like I'm 100% sure this is a good move, that's why I brought it here to discussion in the first place - to see if there actually any "deal breaking" drawbacks or not.
So far I must say, the idea of Gentoo having more binary support OOTB still seems to be a good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54241
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jhon987,
These binhosts are often referred to an tinderboxes. There used to be tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org
Its easy enough to turn a stage3 tarball into a BINHOST too.
Gentoo has a way to address the security issue but the implementation is not yet complete.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hasufell
Retired Dev
Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | and I understand that improved binary support is in the works. |
What makes you think that? I didn't really follow recent development at that front, but we even lack the most basic foundation for binary package support: a spec.
Also see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=518122
If there is someone actually working on that, then that would be great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54241
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
hasufell,
It was something I read on the -dev ml.
I agree that a requirement spec would be a good first step ... just like the one we had for portage all those years ago :)
That doesn't tend to happen is volunteer efforts. Its much more likely that there will be proof of concept codebase, maybe even several, first.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | I agree that a requirement spec would be a good first step ... just like the one we had for portage all those years ago :) |
Yeah, that's the "most basic foundation". LMAO.
Cue several years of being held hostage to some ex-"developer" just outta Uni, with an attitude to match, and not much else besides a fondness for the baroque.
| Quote: | | That doesn't tend to happen is volunteer efforts. Its much more likely that there will be proof of concept codebase, maybe even several, first. |
Exactly; though proof of what? AFAIC portage already covers it.
If Gentoo doesn't want to publicise it, nor make use of it, that's their problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Advocate
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 2034
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sat May 02, 2015 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhon987 wrote: | | Furthermore, in some way, this seems like the natural way of progression, i.e. moving from the "archaic", slower method of compiling to the speedy installing. |
One could argue that pre-compiled packages, where a developer has already decided what is included and excluded and which dependencies must be used, is an archaic approach. For example, if the developer of a binary distribution decides the distribution will use libav and not ffmpeg, or decides the distribution will be based on systemd and not OpenRC/syslog-ng/etc. then you're stuck with it unless you start rebuilding a lot of packages yourself and try to resolve any conflicts and blockers, in which case you may as well be using a source-based distribution.
There is already a distribution based on Gentoo that does what you want: Sabayon. It is pre-built, pre-configured Gentoo with its own Portage overlay and its own binary package manager, Entropy. But you can still use Portage to install packages if you want. However one soon discovers the restrictions of a mixed binary/source approach: binary packages, their USE flags and dependencies have been chosen for you and you run the risk of being unable to install the package -- or breaking something else -- should you decide to merge a source package with different USE flags rather than installing the pre-built package. And you don't have the choice of init system and other tools, as the developer opted to move from OpenRC/syslog-ng/etc. to systemd.
In summary, I'm happy with Gentoo the way it is. On my main laptop where I want complete control and flexibility I install Gentoo. On other machines I install Sabayon because I don't have exacting needs and just want to install the OS and a few well-known packages quickly.
_________________
Clevo W230SS: amd64, VIDEO_CARDS="intel modesetting nvidia".
Compal NBLB2: ~amd64, xf86-video-ati. Dual boot Win 7 Pro 64-bit.
OpenRC udev elogind & KDE on both.
Fitzcarraldo's blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hasufell
Retired Dev
Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Quote: | | That doesn't tend to happen is volunteer efforts. Its much more likely that there will be proof of concept codebase, maybe even several, first. |
Exactly; though proof of what? AFAIC portage already covers it.
If Gentoo doesn't want to publicise it, nor make use of it, that's their problem. |
Turning prototype implementations into an actual spec without further ado is the reason PMS is so messed up today. I hope you don't suggest we copy that workflow for designing binary package support. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That doesn't tend to happen is volunteer efforts. Its much more likely that there will be proof of concept codebase, maybe even several, first. |
| steveL wrote: | Exactly; though proof of what? AFAIC portage already covers it.
If Gentoo doesn't want to publicise it, nor make use of it, that's their problem. |
Hmm this was badly put; Gentoo should not "make use" of binpkg support; that's for downstreams like calculate or chromium-os to do.
So there is no problem as far as Gentoo is concerned, imo. (My mistake.)
| hasufell wrote: | | Turning prototype implementations into an actual spec without further ado is the reason PMS is so messed up today. I hope you don't suggest we copy that workflow for designing binary package support. |
You want me to answer a strawman? No thanks.
Really what I'm suggesting is we keep "designers" like McCreesh well away from anything, and use what we've got, if we're actually in need of it.
Are you?
I mean: are you working with binpkgs on a daily basis, and finding that they don't fulfil your expectations?
How exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2015 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhon987 wrote: | | Furthermore, in some way, this seems like the natural way of progression, i.e. moving from the "archaic", slower method of compiling to the speedy installing. |
| Fitzcarraldo wrote: | | One could argue that pre-compiled packages, where a developer has already decided what is included and excluded and which dependencies must be used, is an archaic approach. |
++
That's what makes Gentoo so much better than bindists; that and the lack of dependency hell.
"I can't get this package to upgrade" is not the same as "there's a bug somewhere in the stack, no-one knows where, here just update your install."
In the former case your machine still works fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
