Gentoo Portage in Arch

Riklaunim · 2005-05-16 10:27:12

If you want to, you can see this wiki page for a how-to

T-Dawg · 2005-05-16 10:51:42

makepkg? I hate to burst your bubble, but people are going to be all over you for this.

CyberTron · 2005-05-16 11:39:59

I think it is a great that RikJaunim took the time to do a wiki on this

I will probably not use emerge/portage myself...but it is nic to have options

fetreney2000 · 2005-05-16 12:59:32

I never try gentoo portage before but I already satisfy with pacman and makepkg. Thanks for the nice wiki though.

T-Dawg · 2005-05-16 13:29:18

to clarify myself: I appreciate anyone who takes the time to write up a wiki for this community. My only problem was that I found it to be a bit of a slap in the face to archlinux and pacman. But I guess thats just my opinion and I appologize if I offended anyone.

CyberTron · 2005-05-16 13:32:04

I do agree with you penguin, makepkg and abs are basically the same as portage

IceRAM · 2005-05-16 13:54:49

... and keep the system CLEAN (makepkg and abs), knowing at every moment which package a file belongs to (using pacman) - maybe this should also be put in that wiki page.

phrakture · 2005-05-16 14:46:10

Son...of...a... ok:
To anyone and everyone who finds this thread... this is not safe to do on Archlinux. If you attempt to use gentoo's portage on Arch, and it breaks, it is your fault and *you* must be the one to fix it. Trying to shove another distro's package manager on a different distro is like trying to make a monkey eat a taco - it won't be pretty.

That said, I am 100% with the "slap-in-the-face" crowd. Foremost, there is nothing that portage can do that abs/makepkg/srcpac cannot do... yeah you can't do "USE=gtk" but you can use srcpac to say "--enable-gtk=yes" - same feature, different implementation.

So, if anyone here respects my opinion on these things, I'm going to suggest not using this.

CyberTron · 2005-05-16 15:26:12

Phrakture:

In the wiki it acutally says that portage isn't stable in non-gentoo systems....and everything that is not actually in the release/current and extra repo must also be considered not safe

so if that were the case, then even aur is considered unsafe, but then again, arch is not ment to be stable and safe, it is meant to be fast and bleeding edge...

but that is not this topic

But still, I do not think that portage actually does anything in an arch-system...if you wanted to build everything then maybe that person should really use gentoo instead of arch..
arch is however, in my opinoin, faster than gentoo...

btw, it seems that there are more problems with using portage than not, (you have to backup ld.conf.so and restore them everytiime you have run portage)

sorry for the flames btw

phrakture · 2005-05-16 15:35:21

CyberTron wrote:

Phrakture:
In the wiki it acutally says that portage isn't stable in non-gentoo systems....and everything that is not actually in the release/current and extra repo must also be considered not safe

Yeah but not everyone is going to read all the wiki... they'll search the forums, find this thread, and follow the wiki steps w/o fully reading the instructions (it happens).

And for the record: the AUR is considered insecure and unstable... (not by me) - check the ML

jerem · 2005-05-16 15:46:33

That's completely stupid to try to apply every package management to every distro.

What is the advantage of running Arch with Portage over Gentoo ? I find none. Arch uses pacman and it runs simple, fast and stable. If you use Portage instead, you will have a system that looks like gentoo, smells like gentoo, runs like gentoo, but is NOT gentoo, is less stable, and took you hours to set up and fix things.

Portage is the core of gentoo. If you want to do a portage-based distro, you're reinventing the wheel.

That being said, I agree that portage as a SECONDARY package manager would be good, because of so many packages available, but what would be really really nice, is a wrapper so that portage outputs Arch compatible packages. Because if you run pacman and portage at same time without one telling the other what's installed, that's going to be messy.

Currently, I'm running Slackware (Linux from Slack in fact) with NetBSD's pkgsrc. Runs nicely but requires painful efforts...

Riklaunim · 2005-05-16 16:11:22

...there is "emerde" for slackwarea - a fully integrated portage system
Not that you can use ebuilds from the snapshot and in some way the portage to make PKGBUILDS from those ebuilds...

jerem · 2005-05-16 16:18:48

"Emerde" in french means "Shit". Really.

cactus · 2005-05-16 19:17:13

jerem wrote:

"Emerde" in french means "Shit". Really.

ROFL!!

Stinky · 2005-05-16 20:04:17

jerem wrote:

"Emerde" in french means "Shit". Really.

ROFL!
Actually, just "merde" is shit, but that's close enough.

cactus · 2005-05-16 20:22:05

so..would that make Emerde 'e-shit'?

Nice.

filoktetes · 2005-05-16 20:37:59

Hey, if anyone for some weird reason should want to use rpm, deb, ebuild, portage or God forbid setup.exe on Arch, and if someone even makes it possible for them to do so, then it is a good thing. Of course we could discuss the whys and whynots till our fingers turn into tulips, that is not really relevant here. We can rest asured that responsible and intelligent people will see to that portage will stay away from current or extra.

As has often been stated in Arch Linux forums, Linux is about choice, and Arch Linux even more so, since it is a distribution for experienced users, who should not be protected from themselves. They should know that Portage is not useful on Arch, and if they choose to use it, they should know exactly why.

And when someone using Arch, who's not that experienced (but will be very soon, since she's chosen the perfect distro to learn from ), askes a question in the forum about how to use portage, some more experienced user in this helpful, friendly, patient and knowledgable forum, will advice her, that using it is not a good idea at all. And no one will give her any offensive remarks about being stupid or not belonging in the Arch community

Stinky · 2005-05-16 20:47:54

cactus wrote:

so..would that make Emerde 'e-shit'?

phrakture · 2005-05-16 20:48:02

reb wrote:

And when someone using Arch, who's not that experienced (but will be very soon, since she's chosen the perfect distro to learn from ), askes a question in the forum about how to use portage, some more experienced user in this helpful, friendly, patient and knowledgable forum, will advice her, that using it is not a good idea at all. And no one will give her any offensive remarks about being stupid or not belonging in the Arch community

That's the problem - that it's going to happen... I don't want to answer questions like that... in the same way a parent doesn't like to hear things from their kids like "how do you stop your wrist from bleeding?" or "how do you get gum out of the dog's hair?" or "why is the TV smoking?" - sure, the parent could easilly remedy those situations, but do you want to? isn't prevention better?

I don't care if someone wants to use portage, but allowing noob-ish users to use it is just going to cause problems that I'm going to have to deal with...

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-05-17 08:16:12

e-Merde is a trademark of IBM

CyberTron · 2005-05-17 08:30:44

phrakture wrote:

I don't care if someone wants to use portage, but allowing noob-ish users to use it is just going to cause problems that I'm going to have to deal with...

but you seem to care..and I believe that nobody is going to force you to deal with the noobie questions are they? but what about the elite people that decides to use portage and break their systems and asks a question about portage? are you going to be mad at them too?

If you are tired of newbie questions, just dont answer them , in any way

phrakture · 2005-05-17 13:48:50

CyberTron wrote:

If you are tired of newbie questions, just dont answer them , in any way

that's notthe point I'm trying to make - I'm trying to prevent issues before they happen - I don't mind helping people out, but if it's easilly preventable, then it's just irritating

ozar · 2005-05-17 13:57:52

Thanks, but I'm gonna pass on portage with Arch.

If I should decide to play with portage again, I'll just reinstall Gentoo since it is optimized for that distro. I think trying to use it with Arch is 100% sure to cause me grief somewhere along the way.

CyberTron · 2005-05-17 14:00:20

i do understand you, i really do, but I do not agree with you

but, these are my opinions...and they do not really belong here since this thread was about the Opportunity to use gentoo portage in arch....which I don't find useful, but maybe someone wanna use it to install some foreign program that do not exist in the AUR, or any other repo...*which is unlikely though*

T-Dawg · 2005-05-17 14:50:20

but maybe someone wanna use it to install some foreign program that do not exist in the AUR, or any other repo...

As pointed out earlier this is what makepkg is for. IMHO, learning to use this simple program to install what doesn't exist in the repos or in AUR, is far more easier and sensible then to install portage and risk possible system instablility because:

1) It can break pacman, not knowing what packages have been installed by portage
2) It can break portage, not knowing what packages have been installed by pacman
3) If any of the above exists, your system will surely break.

And as pointed out above portage is not optimized to work on a system other than gentoo.

If your knowledgeable enough to install and use portage, then certainly a PKGBUILD for a desired package shouldn't be hard to do.
Its not that hard, it really isn't.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-05-16 10:27:12

Gentoo Portage in Arch

#2 2005-05-16 10:51:42

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#3 2005-05-16 11:39:59

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#4 2005-05-16 12:59:32

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#5 2005-05-16 13:29:18

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#6 2005-05-16 13:32:04

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#7 2005-05-16 13:54:49

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#8 2005-05-16 14:46:10

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#9 2005-05-16 15:26:12

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#10 2005-05-16 15:35:21

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#11 2005-05-16 15:46:33

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#12 2005-05-16 16:11:22

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#13 2005-05-16 16:18:48

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#14 2005-05-16 19:17:13

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#15 2005-05-16 20:04:17

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#16 2005-05-16 20:22:05

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#17 2005-05-16 20:37:59

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#18 2005-05-16 20:47:54

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#19 2005-05-16 20:48:02

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#20 2005-05-17 08:16:12

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#21 2005-05-17 08:30:44

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#22 2005-05-17 13:48:50

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#23 2005-05-17 13:57:52

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#24 2005-05-17 14:00:20

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

#25 2005-05-17 14:50:20

Re: Gentoo Portage in Arch

Board footer