When Arch meets Source-based

Sander Hoksbergen · 2009-01-06 21:37:17

Hello there!

I've been an arch64 user for about half a year now and recently tried out Gentoo (Though I havent been really successful at custom kernels yet...).
Both distros are absolutely awesome, each it's pros and cons. Arch's BSD Style init + PKGBUILDs and simplicity, and Gentoos source-based and *complex*(in a negative way) customizability + USE flags

Are there currently any distros involving Arch's KISS and BSD style init, but with a source-based flavor? That would be my definition of the ultimate distribution.
I'll probably stay with Arch anyway but would still like to know

Thanks in advance! ~Sander

Last edited by Sander Hoksbergen (2009-01-06 21:40:18)

Xyne · 2009-01-06 21:42:38

If you want to build from source, why don't you just use ABS?
Take a look at pacbuilder too.

You can customize your builds as much as you want = best of both worlds.

canen · 2009-01-06 21:45:53

Crux?

Sander Hoksbergen · 2009-01-06 22:05:45

I find abs to be quite annoying on a fresh system install because you have to run makepkg for *every**single**package* though I guess it's fine when you only want to install one package, but I really prefer a portage-like system.
Pacbuilder..now hmm, I should really give that a try.
As for Crux, no 64-bit support it seems, could be wrong.

Also, I think I'll be reading the LFS Handbook, and have some fun with that

Thanks guys!

Allan · 2009-01-06 22:17:31

If you find running makepkg annoying for every single package, then LFS is probably going to be worse...

There was an official tool call srcpac which allowed you to update from source but I'm not sure it still works

Ranguvar · 2009-01-06 23:36:04

I'm in the same boat. I love Arch's focus on simplicity, and its concise and well-integrated docs (Gentoo's docs may be expansive, but they come from multiple sources and often disagree), but I _love_ the customizability of Funtoo (Gentoo re-done, so to speak, by the original Gentoo dev).

ABS is fine for compiling individual packages, but the main advantage to me of using Funtoo was the USE flags. You learn to love 'em I've been quite annoyed by Arch packages being compiled different than I'm used to, and I need to use ABS to build my version. This process is much harder to automate. Also, Funtoo is much kinder towards multi-slot and using really old or really new versions of packages, though PKGBUILDS are easier to write.

I have ideas, though, on making Gentoo/Funtoo better. Unfortuantely, a lot hinges on a new operating system... for example, making the distro the foundation of other distros and encouraging developers themselves to maintain packages, which eliminates a ton of wasted effort by _over 9000_ distros of Linux, a lot maintaining their own set of packages, and means packages are a lot more stable. I have tons of other ideas, but I'm OT now.

sand_man · 2009-01-06 23:43:09

You could try Sourcemage http://www.sourcemage.org/Init_System
It's not BSD init but it sounds interesting and simple

SamC · 2009-01-07 00:03:39

How about using makeworld? You could avoid makeing all of the packages by removing their directories from the ABS tree.

Ranguvar · 2009-01-07 00:40:11

Makeworld doesn't get you the biggest benefit that Gentoo offers, which is ridiculous customizability that's also easy to maintain - USE flags. Modifying PKGBUILDS and using customikepkg to manage customizations is... well... hackish. And obnoxious, somewhat. And the other stuff I mentioned.

Sourcemage and Lunar Linux are both cool, but both very small distros... and a source-based distro really needs a lot of people behind it to do well. Mainting source packages that are different for every user is very difficult. I tried Lunar a little, but came to that conclusion pretty quick.

cardinals_fan · 2009-01-07 00:53:29

CRUX is the best source-based distro I've tried. It has excellent documentation, friendly users, and a very clean design.

Ranguvar · 2009-01-07 01:15:04

*places CRUX on the long, long list of OSen to install once I repartition with LVM*

Misfit138 · 2009-01-07 02:48:41

CRUX is nice. Kind of crude, but nice.
Why not try BSD?

dr.cranium · 2009-01-07 03:39:11

If you want that, might as well go with FreeBSD. Sourcebased BSD style of doing things.

Ranguvar · 2009-01-07 04:48:06

Oh, I've tried it, and I will again most likely. Over all, the thing I hate most about *BSD (don't laugh)... is the feel. Each BSD feels like a company. I know they aren't, but Linux distros have this awesome 'hackish', home-grown feel. *BSD feels like a product. Some people might hear that and go straight for BSD... I don't.

Besides that, I like how a lot of BSD is very focused on code-correctness, elegance, perhaps even simplicity. They do lack some stuff I need - namely, 64-bit NVIDIA drivers (I'd really rather not go 32-bit, I encode a lot and 64-bit helps x264 by ~10%, though this isn't a deal-breaker by itself), Wine (this IS a deal-breaker - I use the AviSynth video processing/encoding scripting language all the time, it's ridiculously powerful. Sadly, though open source, it's tied to DirectShow and VfW. It is possible to run it in Wine and pipe the output out, which is what I do. Let alone stuff like games... Wine is very convenient. I know it works, but it has numerous problems)... and I may have just gotten a little attached to GNU/Linux

I will try *BSD again though, later.

cardinals_fan · 2009-01-07 06:07:04

Ranguvar wrote:

Oh, I've tried it, and I will again most likely. Over all, the thing I hate most about *BSD (don't laugh)... is the feel. Each BSD feels like a company. I know they aren't, but Linux distros have this awesome 'hackish', home-grown feel. *BSD feels like a product. Some people might hear that and go straight for BSD... I don't.
Besides that, I like how a lot of BSD is very focused on code-correctness, elegance, perhaps even simplicity. They do lack some stuff I need - namely, 64-bit NVIDIA drivers (I'd really rather not go 32-bit, I encode a lot and 64-bit helps x264 by ~10%, though this isn't a deal-breaker by itself), Wine (this IS a deal-breaker - I use the AviSynth video processing/encoding scripting language all the time, it's ridiculously powerful. Sadly, though open source, it's tied to DirectShow and VfW. It is possible to run it in Wine and pipe the output out, which is what I do. Let alone stuff like games... Wine is very convenient. I know it works, but it has numerous problems)... and I may have just gotten a little attached to GNU/Linux
I will try *BSD again though, later.

OpenBSD is about as far from corporate as it gets.

I think NetBSD is much better though. Pkgsrc is a good source-based system and the community is great.

Neither of those will have any proprietary NVIDIA drivers, which doesn't bother me since NVIDIA has decided to stop supporting my 6100 and start ignoring my emails.

Sander Hoksbergen · 2009-01-07 12:34:47

#BSD is something I don't want to try for a long time on a desktop, no offense but I heard some bad things about it from friends and it doesn't feel like Linux either.
#Yes, LFS is going to be worse than running makepkg on every single package, but atleast I get even more customizability; I can include some of both Arch's and Gentoo's plus sides.
'sides, I could eventually write an app that combines both pacman and portage in some sort of source-based pacman.....Do I feel another distribution being created? Hehe..

#I could use Gentoo and adjust it to use a BSD-init and things like that, but it leaves me with a feeling that I 'contaminated' my OS; No idea why..

Last edited by Sander Hoksbergen (2009-01-07 12:35:49)

Allan · 2009-01-07 12:42:59

If you want to look at LFS with pacman as a package manager, have a look at DIY Linux. Last I looked, it was a bit outdated but may help you get going. I don't think it would be that hard to adjust makepkg to have some sort of USE flags if you really wanted that...

catwell · 2009-01-07 13:39:47

Ranguvar wrote:

I use the AviSynth video processing/encoding scripting language all the time, it's ridiculously powerful. Sadly, though open source, it's tied to DirectShow and VfW. It is possible to run it in Wine and pipe the output out, which is what I do.

<off topic>
Did you try AviSynth 3, which does work on Linux? I did some time ago, it looked promising but not production ready at all, but maybe tings evolved.
</off topic>

As for source based distributions, I agree that their real only use is things that allow you to customize them globally like USE-flags, and these have to be complex, so I think a simple, useful source-based distribution doesn't exist.

jcolinzheng · 2009-01-07 13:49:09

Sander Hoksbergen wrote:

#BSD is something I don't want to try for a long time on a desktop, no offense but I heard some bad things about it from friends and it doesn't feel like Linux either.
#Yes, LFS is going to be worse than running makepkg on every single package, but atleast I get even more customizability; I can include some of both Arch's and Gentoo's plus sides.
'sides, I could eventually write an app that combines both pacman and portage in some sort of source-based pacman.....Do I feel another distribution being created? Hehe..
#I could use Gentoo and adjust it to use a BSD-init and things like that, but it leaves me with a feeling that I 'contaminated' my OS; No idea why..

The bad thing about BSD is that it does feel like Linux.
I can never appreciate LFS: if you *will* end up using some package manager anyway, why not start from e.g Arch, Slackware or CRUX, and tinker however you like?

Among all source-based, I dislike Gentoo most, for its ad hoc and complex configuration system (even worse than Debian on this).

alecmg · 2009-01-07 13:56:40

Only few packages benefit from recompile. Compiling everything is waste of time. But being able to selecively do it, without breaking package system is a big bonus

Ranguvar · 2009-01-07 16:03:40

@catwell: AviSynth 3, sadly, is pretty much a dead project. I swear I will help work on it once I am useful in that area But for now, it's 100% unusable. As for USE flags, I disagree. They don't have to be complex (and they actually aren't too much). The problems arise I have found when you start setting USE flags because you _think_ you will use features in the future, or when you try to set all USE flags at the very beginning. Just roll with it, and set them when you need them. Although, more profiles containing average USE flags for different system use cases would not hurt at all.

@jcolinzheng: I agree on the configuration aspect completely. Gentoo should really have a structured, simple config system. Arch has demonstrated that you can do that without sacrificing power, I don't think source-based has to be necessarily too much more complex. As for LFS, it's real nice to learn with and just plain have fun with, but is hard to use as a main distro - mostly taking time to track upstream bugs, security flaws, patches needed, etc... it's ridiculous how much work distros do just for packaging (thanks Arch, btw ).

@alecmg: Agreed. OFFTOPIC{ Try comparing default KDE 4.1 to KDE 4.1 compiled with the 'kdehiddenvisibility' USE flag, and LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,--as-needed". No, I'm not in ricer mode I've been experimenting with Funtoo long enough to know which flags are and aren't worth setting (e.g. CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe" is as good as it gets... more just fscks things up almost always). Startup times of KDE and some apps are boosted exponentially, assuming you had a fast PC to begin with. Some packages have problems with --as-needed, and to a lesser extent the dtags one, but they are getting fewer and fewer (and those two are the biggest helps). }

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-01-07 16:04:11)

Allan · 2009-01-07 16:11:13

Ranguvar wrote:

@alecmg: Agreed. OFFTOPIC{ Try comparing default KDE 4.1 to KDE 4.1 compiled with the 'kdehiddenvisibility' USE flag, and LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,--as-needed".

I just learnt today the we patch our compiler to use --hash-style=both. Also, Ubuntu adds "-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions" to their LDFLAGS so that may be interesting.

Jerry · 2009-01-10 03:32:20

The closest, in my opinion, would be source mage but without the bsd init.

archlinux + nix package manager might work. It can even fix annoying problem with versions like what we have in wine (a new version have a chance of crapping on your windows application). there's a nix package in aur, haven't tried using it yet.

Allan · 2009-01-10 03:36:15

Jerry wrote:

archlinux + nix package manager might work. It can even fix annoying problem with versions like what we have in wine (a new version have a chance of crapping on your windows application).

Or you could actually read "man pacman.conf" and learn how to ignore updates for a particular package. My guess is that would be easier than changing package managers...

Jerry · 2009-01-10 06:07:46

Ignoring package update isn't the solution if you need to have several version of wine.

You don't have to necessarily change package manager, use nix where you need it (multiple version of same software) and use pacman for everything else.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-01-06 21:37:17

When Arch meets Source-based

#2 2009-01-06 21:42:38

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#3 2009-01-06 21:45:53

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#4 2009-01-06 22:05:45

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#5 2009-01-06 22:17:31

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#6 2009-01-06 23:36:04

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#7 2009-01-06 23:43:09

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#8 2009-01-07 00:03:39

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#9 2009-01-07 00:40:11

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#10 2009-01-07 00:53:29

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#11 2009-01-07 01:15:04

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#12 2009-01-07 02:48:41

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#13 2009-01-07 03:39:11

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#14 2009-01-07 04:48:06

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#15 2009-01-07 06:07:04

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#16 2009-01-07 12:34:47

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#17 2009-01-07 12:42:59

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#18 2009-01-07 13:39:47

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#19 2009-01-07 13:49:09

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#20 2009-01-07 13:56:40

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#21 2009-01-07 16:03:40

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#22 2009-01-07 16:11:13

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#23 2009-01-10 03:32:20

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#24 2009-01-10 03:36:15

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

#25 2009-01-10 06:07:46

Re: When Arch meets Source-based

Board footer