>> We want the source and binary to be closely associated,
>> but whether they form one downloadable package or two
>> seems like an implementation detail. Since many people
>> would rather get only the binary, I think it is more convenient
>> if they are two downloadable packages rather than one.
>> To require everyone installing the system build it from source
>> would be inconvenient, and I see no benefit from it.
>> For packages, we separate building from installation.
>> We should do this for the whole system as well.
>> It would be good to be able to built binaries for the entire system
>> with `./configure; make', but installation would be a separate step.
> With a source-based distribution, each software is tied in one single
> package, I mean the source, that you can customize according to your
> needs with the USE flags (I am thinking about portage, a package
> management system)
> This approach seems more elegant and more powerful to me than binary
> distributions in which you have to deal with several package for the
> same software (emacs witout X, Emacs with X, Emacs with gtk+ for
<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>
That sort of things already exist Archlinux and have it's free side
Parabola ... on first boot you've got a $ and then with pacman (the
package manager) you install your wish from Emacs out of X to the rest.
With the pkgbuilds, you design your own packages as you wish.
Well /me stop to speak on that subject before beeing tax of commercials