portage vs yum

[Ian Chapman]

Thufir wrote:

> Sabayon may have screwed things up, but a system which compiles most 
> things from source in a portage type way, with a few exceptions which are 
> time intensive, would be easier to maintain and thus larger.

Seriously, how can something where I have to compile most things from 
source be easier to maintain? You have an extra layer of complexity. In 
addition to satisfying dependancies at the install, you also have to 
satisfy dependancies for compiling. Personally I'd rather just install 
binaries and get on with things rather than waiting for things to 
compile. I know a guy who's a big Gentoo fan and he has a particular 
dislike of redhat/fedora. I asked him what he particularly liked about 
Gentoo and he said Portage and the fact that he can compile stuff from 
source and tweak the compile options to optimise it, so it runs faster. 
Fair enough, sounds kinda reasonable until he admitted he waited 11 days 
for X to compile on his 486. And for what, the chance of it starting up 
2 seconds quicker? I know extreme example, but... :-) Each to their own, 
I suppose.

-- 
Ian Chapman.