> Alpine looks like it could be a functional, lightweight, mdev-based,
> end-user distro if only glibc could be dropped in in place of uclibc.
> I have one more question. Is Alpine source-based or binary?
> According to
> > Note that Gentoo is source based, just like ports in FreeBSD is while
> > Debian uses pre-compiled binaries. Alpine is compiled using Gentoo
> > portage but Alpine itself uses its own apk-tools binary package that
> > are more similar FreeBSD's binary packages.
> That's rather vague, and I'd like an English translation <G>.
It's also out-of-date. Alpine used to be build in a Gentoo build
environment, but nowadays that's no longer done; Alpine is built in an
The source-based/binary-based contrast isn't so sharply applicable here.
I haven't used Gentoo but my understanding is that it's a source-based
distro in the classic sense. Alpine is more of a hybrid, like Arch and
FreeBSD are: binary packages are available, but it's also very easy to
build one or all packages from source. The package tree is kept in git;
so you can keep your personal modifications in local branches. Building
from source and dealing with git aren't necessary; if you want, you can
just stick to the pre-built binary packages.
I used Arch and FreeBSD for a long time but was hankering after a distro
with just Alpine characteristics. But if you're set on glibc, it sounds
to me like you might have an easier time getting Arch to work the way
Received on Mon Mar 26 2012 - 16:36:10 UTC