this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48176 readers
897 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
68
How different is Gentoo's new binary package system, compared to Arch Linux? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/linux@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It was announced late last year that Gentoo is now offering binary versions of their packages. I’ve always had an interest in Gentoo, but the need to compile everything has always turned me away from it. I run Arch because it gives me the sense that I have more control of my system, when compared to other distros like Ubuntu, for example, but it still keeps things simple enough for day-to-day use. That being said, when compared to Gentoo, Arch is still rather restrictive, so if there exists an alternative that offers Arch’s simplicity, and also the potential for customization of Gentoo, then I would gladly switch. I am wondering if Gentoo’s new binary offerings fit this description. From what I understand, it removes the need to set use flags, and to compile any packages, but it still allows you to maintain full control over your system.

So, in summary, is a binary Gentoo functionally equivelant to Arch Linux, but with more control over the system? I would like to know more about the following:

  1. Does the OS installation change, and, if so, how?
  2. Does package installation, updates, and maintenance change, and, if so, how?
  3. Do system updates change, and, if so, how?
  4. Do you lose any potential control over the system when using the binaries, rather than compiling from source, and, if so, what?
  5. Are there any differences in system stability? Can I expect things to break more readily on a binary Gentoo compared to Arch Linux?

Just a disclaimer: I have never used Gentoo -- all my knowledge is second hand, or from skimming documentation out of curiosity. Please correct any inacuracies that I may have in my knowledge.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bubstance@lemmy.ml 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

So, a few things:

The thing that's "equivalent to Arch" would be Arch. There is really no comparison between Gentoo and Arch outside of the "build your own system" approach; they use different package managers, different init systems (by default), etc.

Arch has the goal of providing user flexibility through its minimal nature — you're expected to choose the software you want and build up a system that fits your needs.

Gentoo, meanwhile, has the goal of providing user flexibility through its minimal nature as well as through skillful use of compiler flags and machine-specific hardware tweaks — you are quite literally expected to build your system, as in compile your software from source. Even the installation is like that: you grab a root tarball and do a good ol'-fashioned chroot installation, then edit /etc/portage/make.conf and let 'er rip.

Now, Arch has the ability to offer a certain amount of this flexibility as well; most people become familiar with it by diving deeper into the AUR than just installing yay or paru. With Gentoo you have portage and ebuilds baked into the system from the start. You can have complicated setups involving multiple build machines that can combine resources and have it all handled with some basic mucking around in /etc/portage. Gentoo also offers the concept of overlays, which add repositories like GURU that fill similar roles to the AUR but are handled by the default package manager.

Using binary packages — those that are offered — is missing out on a key strength of Gentoo and the primary reason one may choose it over another.

That all being said, I can answer at least one of these more specifically:

Do you lose any potential control over the system when using the binaries, rather than compiling from source, and, if so, what?

Well, obviously. You lose all of the ability to choose how the software is compiled, which is most of the point of Gentoo: tweaking compiler settings and optimizing for your specific hardware. Binary packages are built with a predefined set of USE flags and are meant to be run on a wide variety of systems.

There also aren't a ton of them, so you'll still likely be compiling the majority of your system from source which... may not be to your taste.

TL;DR: Gentoo offers a lot of the same sort of features that Arch users love — AUR vs GURU as an example — and many people use Gentoo with very little tweaking, but binary packages do not fundamentally change much for someone who has never used Gentoo. There will still be a curve and you will be learning.

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Using binary packages — those that are offered — is missing out on a key strength of Gentoo and the primary reason one may choose it over another.

Do you get any benefits when compiling giant binaries like FF or chromium?

When I ran guixos those two sat in a separate manifest because compiling them was a "leave it overnight" type of jobs.

[–] bubstance@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You sure do get benefits, at least in the form of being able to select your compile-time options.

Now, does this always result in a tangible performance difference? Absolutely not. It's more about being able to make decisions like "I don't want <insert_favorite_software> to be compiled with <insert_least_favorite_options> and I want it all handled by my package manager."

How much of a benefit this would be to you or anyone else is worth exploring — at least in my opinion — and a large reason why Gentoo has its own unique role in the larger Linux world.

[–] Shareni@programming.dev 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was wandering about the benefits for specific apps like browsers.

From my limited experience, most compiled updates are finished pretty quickly. The only exception are huge binaries, so a ThinkPad literally takes hours to compile Firefox.

[–] bubstance@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Any benefit — whether that be smaller overall binary size, reduced system requirements, removed dependencies on unneeded libraries, etc. — would be entirely dependent on the machine and what USE flags you're messing around with. I can't really be more specific without knowing your exact hardware configuration and needs. You would have to know what features Firefox has that you explicitly don't need and are available as flags, then you could start shaving your yak.

I can, however, say that in all my time using Gentoo I installed Firefox from source maybe a half-dozen times, and it was always just to test out the upgrade from one CPU to the next. I don't really need to trim all of the fat out of Firefox in most cases, so if I felt like I needed a really light GUI browser I'd probably just grab dillo or netsurf.

Yes, compiling modern browsers from source on a laptop will probably take a few hours. Same thing with rust and the usual suspects. This is, of course, where binary packages are not only useful but indispensable.

The benefits one could potentially gain from compiling something like a browser are often outweighed by practicality. Then again, a counter to that argument could be something along the lines of "you don't have to sit there and watch it compile, you could be doing something else."

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are the benefits of compiling from source noticeable for modern hardware or slightly last gen hardware? Like, a last generation Ryzen 5900x with NVidia 3070 GPU (my current setup).

I know compile flags definitely have an effect, I just don't know how dramatic a difference there would be.

[–] bubstance@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

It certainly can be noticeable, depending on where and at what you're looking. The issue can be that making a general "yes, you'll see a difference" statement is usually difficult; opinions of what counts as "a difference" vary wildly from person to person.

What you experience could be as small as shaving a few KiB off your executable or getting an extra 2-3 FPS in a game all the way up to "it just won't work unless I compile it this specific way because of <insert_variable>."

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

As the Gentoo chromium maintainer, not really - we strip most CFLAGS as part of the ebuild unless you enable a special USE flag to keep them and it's not particularly supported - if you encounter breakage with that enabled the first thing I'm going to ask you to do is turn them off.

Edit: we do have some USE flags that control how the package is built, but that's mostly choosing between the Google-bundled and system versions of libraries.

Edit the second: there isn't a package on the binhost for chromium yet, I need to work out how to build it so that it isn't an issue to distribute.

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 2 points 9 months ago

Using binary packages — those that are offered — is missing out on a key strength of Gentoo and the primary reason one may choose it over another.

Gentoo is about enabling choice. The choice to use non-customised binary packages to fill a need is still a choice.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

There is really no comparison between Gentoo and Arch outside of the “build your own system” approach

This is essentially what I was referring to.

[–] backhdlp@iusearchlinux.fyi 12 points 9 months ago

I've been using Gentoo for a bit less than a month now. Installing the binary version of a package can easily be done by providing one or two flags to emerge. The binary packages are compiled pretty generic, to work with most systems, so you lose out on most of the compilation level control.

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This has been answered a bit already but:

So, in summary, is a binary Gentoo functionally equivelant to Arch Linux, but with more control over the system?

Perhaps, if that's how you view the world. I'd argue that it's better as I've never seen Gentoo ship a version of curl that broke Portage...

I would like to know more about the following:

  1. Does the OS installation change, and, if so, how?

You basically unpack a tarball, select a kernel, install a bootloader, and go. It's no different to before except that you can optionally choose to enable the use of binary packages.

  1. Does package installation, updates, and maintenance change, and, if so, how?

If comparing to arch, you use portage to handle that but the concept is the same.

Gentoo has a great system for managing configuration changes when a package updates a file that you've customised.

  1. Do system updates change, and, if so, how?

This question doesn't make much sense to me. What is a "system update"? Isn't that just updating all of your packages at once?

  1. Do you lose any potential control over the system when using the binaries, rather than compiling from source, and, if so, what?

Yes and no. If you customise your USE flags the binary won't be suitable and instead portage will build the package as you requested it

  1. Are there any differences in system stability? Can I expect things to break more readily on a binary Gentoo compared to Arch Linux?

Hahahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Hahaha. Ha.

Arch is notorious for shipping barely tested software to have the higher version number in their repo.

Gentoo enables users to select the stable or testing path, on a per package basis, so you have to opt into packages that haven't been well tested and even those are typically better tested than arch.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I’ve never seen Gentoo ship a version of curl that broke Portage…

Aha, would you mind elaborating? That sounds like quite the issue for Pacman to break its own dependencies.

You basically unpack a tarball, select a kernel, install a bootloader, and go. It’s no different to before except that you can optionally choose to enable the use of binary packages.

Ah okay, I was under the impression that the installation didn't require installing from source with the new binary system -- I thought it was more akin to Arch's installation where you just select your kernel binary in Pacman, then download, and install.

Gentoo has a great system for managing configuration changes when a package updates a file that you’ve customised.

Would you have any resources/documentation for me to look into this more?

This question doesn’t make much sense to me. What is a “system update”? Isn’t that just updating all of your packages at once?

I misworded my original post -- I was referring to things like updating the kernel. I thought that maybe the kernel would be a binary, so it would not have to be recompiled like how I would assume it usually does.

Gentoo enables users to select the stable or testing path, on a per package basis, so you have to opt into packages that haven’t been well tested and even those are typically better tested than arch.

This sounds very appealing to me, but I must admit that these sorts of configurations do seem like they would be mildly daunting to juggle on a production machine.

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Aha, would you mind elaborating? That sounds like quite the issue for Pacman to break its own dependencies.

There was a bug with http/2 in a particular version of curl, which was very quickly updated in the arch repos and rolled out to users; It broke pacman's ability to sync.

It's one of those frustrating things that happens, and someone has to hit the bug first. It's nice to have a "stable" and "testing" branch so that users explicitly opt-in to bleeding edge packages.

Ah okay, I was under the impression that the installation didn't require installing from source with the new binary system -- I thought it was more akin to Arch's installation where you just select your kernel binary in Pacman, then download, and install.

This is just the base system - it's like any other distribution's base install except that we don't have an official 'installer'; Gentoo distributes tarballs that users unpack following the guidance in the handbook.

From there most packages can be installed as a binary if the USE flags line up (and it has been asked to do so), otherwise portage will compile it for you.

After unpacking the system image you can install a binary kernel, have portage compile one for you, or manage it manually (but still let portage fetch sources)

Gentoo has a great system for managing configuration changes when a package updates a file that you’ve customised.

Would you have any resources/documentation for me to look into this more?

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Dispatch-conf

I misworded my original post -- I was referring to things like updating the kernel. I thought that maybe the kernel would be a binary, so it would not have to be recompiled like how I would assume it usually does.

It comes down to user choice. That can now be entirely binary or from source (or from source but managed by portage)

This sounds very appealing to me, but I must admit that these sorts of configurations do seem like they would be mildly daunting to juggle on a production machine.

It's actually pretty straightforward - you nominate packages that you want to run on ~arch (testing) and add them to some config files. Portage handles the rest.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is just the base system - it’s like any other distribution’s base install except that we don’t have an official ‘installer’; Gentoo distributes tarballs that users unpack following the guidance in the handbook.

[...]

After unpacking the system image you can install a binary kernel, have portage compile one for you, or manage it manually (but still let portage fetch sources)

It may be best for me to simply attempt to install Gentoo in a VM to see for myself, but, out of curiosity, how does the base image differ from something like the .iso that Arch Linux distributes to allow you to install the distro? So, if one were to install a binary kernel, would they still need to initially compile anything? Or could one theoretically do a full Gentoo install without the need of compiling?

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 1 points 9 months ago

No idea, I don't arch.

Theoretically you can install a desktop amd64 system using the binhost without compiling anything (or if compilation is required there won't be much), I haven't tried though I have seen other users do it successfully.

[–] bubstance@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I thought that maybe the kernel would be a binary, so it would not have to be recompiled like how I would assume it usually does.

There are options for binary kernels, just so you are aware.

As for documentation related to configuration of portage and /etc/portage/make.conf, I would, of course, be remiss to not point you to the Gentoo Handbook. The wiki contributors do really great work and the community is generally quite welcoming and open to implementation-specific questions.

[–] WalrusByte@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

This question doesn't make much sense to me. What is a "system update"? Isn't that just updating all of your packages at once?

I would think syncing the repos and emerging the @world set would be considered a system update. But I guess that is a bit different from how most distros do it.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Something no one else has mentioned is that it's at least theoretically feasible to recompile an entire Arch system from source with particular compiler flags using ABS. It's mentioned in passing here. I haven't been able to find any straightfoward guides or anything, but it seems like it's doable. (Might require some custom scripting to be reasonably easy to do, though.)

[–] Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's incredibly unsupported and untested. You have no idea what bugs you'll be uncovering.

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Now I kinda want to do it. Lol.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Limited experience with the binary repo but here goes.

I switched over a samba and sftp file server that I don't need to customise with use flags. Along with installing and configuring gentoo-update from the guru repo to handle updates this box pretty much looks after itself now except for kernel updates/reboots and config updates which I need to look in to. I noticed when I enabled the binary repo and updated the system that a lot of packages if not most were available as binaries.

I switched over a desktop system that is basically a tv these days (it's an old dell aio with ok speakers etc). This box has plasma installed and I noticed that some packages don't appear to be included in the binary repo such as the infamous qtwebengine. I say appear because I haven't delved too far into it. I can always exclude the packages that pull in this and other bottlenecks if I want so I might go down that route eventually. Again, a lot of packages just get installed from the binary repo if they are available but I couldn't tell you percentage wise or which ones.