this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
36 points (100.0% liked)
unix like operating system lovers
2152 readers
1 users here now
This is a community that is only for nerds jk. everyone who doesn't scare when seeing UNIX terminal welcome! rules:
- don't make comments that branch out from the main topic too much, at least please somehow relate to it.
- retro operating systems, e.g. discussion about them, is strictly forbidden, please make a retro community instead.
- please be nice for others.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No one's fielded this yet, so I'll give it a shot.
Portage offers maximum configurability: you can switch optional package features on and off. If a package feature is off, you don't need to install dependencies to support it, so it makes for a slimmer system.
You can upgrade many packages even if the distribution hasn't by copying a single small file to a new name and running two commands.
Similarly, if you're running a new or fringe architecture (like riscv) and want to try to install a package that isn't officially available for it, you can do it fairly simply (minor edit to a text file or additional parameter at the command line). Doesn't always work, but it's still easier than the configure-make-make_install dance, and the dependencies are handled for you.
Portage also supports a bunch of other fringe use cases, like pulling source straight from git and building it. And you can create simple packages by writing <10 lines of text file (well, specialized bash shell script).
On the downside, Portage is S-L-O-W. It has more complicated dependency trees to resolve than other package managers, and installs most packages by building them from source (although this isn't a requirement).
I like it, though.