News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gittup, a Linux distro on top of Git by kbenson on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @12:32PM (#16016336)
I wouldn't say a Linux distro package system is largely defined by how software is built form source, but it can be, and it at least matters in all cases.

I would say the package dependency tree is probably the most important, defining feature of the package system. Second to that is delivery (and the fact it's so high on the list is a testament to its importance, as I can remember a time before it when we just had RPM and dpkg). Some package managers also build form source, but that's a quirk of hose those operate, not really a core requirement to delivering binaries to the end user.

Even FreeBSD's ports build system is largely defined be its dependency tree and the rules they have in place to make fetching and building easy. Whether binaries are delivered from it or source that's compiled locally is somewhat transparent to the end user, other than the extra time it takes.

Re:Gittup, a Linux distro on top of Git by saghm on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @01:13PM (#16016635)
I think GP was saying that even the Linux package managers that deliver binaries tend to build their own packages with a distro-specific build system rather than just repackaging upstream binaries
Re:Gittup, a Linux distro on top of Git by kbenson on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @02:00PM (#16017014)
Ah, yes. It's entirely possibly I missed the point. :)

Although repackaging upstream can be a fuzzy concept. E.g. Ubuntu's early days. They've always repackaged Debian packages, but I believe there was less differentiation in the beginning, before Ubuntu has many of its own initiatives and projects.

Re:Gittup, a Linux distro on top of Git by jldugger on Wednesday December 27, 2017 @06:45PM (#16019109)
Even now, Ubuntu releases start largely by forking debian unstable.