DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Trace: 1124292394 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 740 220.127.116.11
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3850
As you said Joerg, that apt/dpkg* are good for managing packages then for
building them; this seems to be backed by Andreas as well.
One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations
of same package but different version; apart from that pkgsrc has no
overall advantage over FreeBSD ports.
Another issue here, is that we have un-substantiated claims that FreeBSD
port maintainers will not accept patch files to make ports work on
DragonFly? I have yet to see any evidence on this matter.
> Please, let us abandone the idea of incrementally updating from source,
> it is evil and the side-effects of not partially removing the dependency
> trees don't justify it.
I agree here, it does not always work well.
Can we not use ports or pkgsrc as our build part of the problem, and
produce packages that are understandable by APT* ?
In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who
want extreme modifications to their applications. I am sure most people,
including me would not really care about source packages; I for one would
not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, total waste of time.
Extremely important to get binary package management right, including
dependency handling, (automatic) updating.