You are not logged in.
Insane-Boy wrote:1.Pacman - maybe like emergy but soo better ;-]
2.Stable.. - like slackware
3.Speed - i haven't seen speeder distro..
4.Init system .. - like slackware but betterPS;From this post you'll understand i'm old slack fan..;-]
Everything I agree but #1.Pacman - maybe like emergy but soo better ;-]
I love Arch Linux and all but I can't make an statement that big ever. portage is so advanced still pacman has a lot to learn from a true package manager. Don't get me wrong Pacman can be an advance package manager just look what Frugalware has done, they have made pacman an advance package manager. Arch Linux still has an old version with very limeted options yet.
I mean that pacman gives you a chance to use binary pkgs or source distro..the source "part" from emerge is perfect i think but the "part" with binary packages is poor...( my opinion )Now do you agree?
Offline
I like the simplicity. However it feels like it has grown a bit complex with time, especially considering that mkinit* and udev thingies. It kinda makes me feel out of control, but I guess I'll just have to read and catch up on it.
Some PKGBUILDs: http://members.lycos.co.uk/sweiss3
Offline
I like the fact that it is way beyond my head - so I keep on learning, and I don't get bored!
Offline
I mean that pacman gives you a chance to use binary pkgs or source distro..the source "part" from emerge is perfect i think but the "part" with binary packages is poor...( my opinion )Now do you agree?
Well in part, portage does not handle binary packages so well but it is fault of not being binary packages repositories availble. So I agree in most parts about binary pkgs.
Offline
rc.conf/pacman/forums
Offline