Re: Ports & Pkg Mgr

[David Leimbach <leimy2k@xxxxxxx>]

On Sep 27, 2003, at 11:03 PM, James Frazer wrote:

> A C callable API -- hmm -- okay so how does this relate to their 
> current TCL code?  I haven't actually played with dports first-hand so 
> I'm still ignorant of its ways.

The idea is it shouldn't interfere with the current Portfile syntax 
which was always secretly TCL :).  Of course ideas are in flux right 
now.

> Interesting.  Right, so do you know what the status for darwin ports 
> on non-darwin OS's is?  I know someone had it working on FreeBSD.

I don't actually... Yes people had it working on different BSD's and 
even Linux I think as well as Solaris.

> Okay here is a question for you -- Is the dports system in a mature 
> enough state that one should spend any significant amount of 
> time/effort writing portfiles for it?  (without something changing 
> that would make them all obsolete).  I understand that dports will 
> never acquire full acceptance until enough portfiles are written for 
> it.

We have 580+ ports already and I would say that's mostly just OS X 
users and Darwin users.  People are currently  working on making the 
part of
darwinports that are platform specific more easily expressed as such 
without being too invasive.

> DragonflyBSD seemed more likely to adopt dports [over the other BSDs] 
> because they are a smaller group and can do pretty much whatever they 
> want -- hence my interest and initial inquiry here.  Not having a Mac 
> and being a noname in FreeBSD-land has kept me at a distance from 
> current efforts to do anything with dports.



> -James