DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:26:21PM +0100, Hiten Pandya wrote:
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.
There are a lot of small things I came to love over the time, e.g.
support for shlock, (b)make package also building the packages of its
dependencies (that'S IMO the most annoying thing in ports). I think that
the option framework is much better implemented than ports', though it
would be nice to have a dialog sometimes. Overall, I found it more
annyoing in ports though, partly also because defining BATCH has other
Semantical differences, at best, lets be honest. They really do not
affect the bigger picture all that much and if they do, I would like to
hear about them.
Secondly, when you say the "option framework" is better built then ports,
please substantiate and elaborate on your claim.
If pkgsrc was to be used for solving the BUILD domain of the problem, it
wouldn't be so bad at all, but I think it is NO GOOD at solving the issues
with binary packages.
One more time I am saying this, handling of binary package management is
still an issue that we need to sort out. As I have outlined in one of my
mails the best solution to this would be hybrid, i.e. using pkgsrc to
build binary packages and using DPKG/APT* for handling those binary
packages for the end user, including dependency handling, blah blah, list
Any issues we encounter with DPKG or APT, we will just have to sort them
out as we go along, but atleast we will be choosing something that has got
quite near to solving most of them. Not to mention there are GUIs out
there for managing APT based package system, and also there is the Smart
Package Manager, an interesting add-on option, effectively.