Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Posted Oct 8, 2009 22:26 UTC (Thu) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)
I've yet to see autopackage, Nix or zero-install distribute a significant number of used packages ... and thus. show that they can work at anything above toy examples.
Feel free to get back to me when one of the above is true.
Posted Oct 9, 2009 9:17 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Posted Oct 9, 2009 11:21 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
Are all Conary-based distributions compatible with each other?
(Conary was invented to solve a different problem. It is well-suited for solving it. But Conary won't bring us world peace. Nor would it unify all distributions)
Posted Oct 9, 2009 15:41 UTC (Fri) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)
But I did not see Conary as the same as Nix/zero-install (and still don't) because to me the idea behind rPath was that you could manage a largish number of "small" changes well (ie. 1,000 customers with a small number of patches each), that package creation might be easier than anything else, and of course the rollback/sub-set features (although years later others are getting there).
Nix/zero-install/etc. seem to me to be based on the idea that you can have large changes within a distro. and it still work. And I'll bet against that everyday, and twice on Sundays.
Posted Oct 9, 2009 9:11 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds