DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:great, I'll give it a try!
While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package
management system should allow us to install an application and all its
dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config space.
This would be called "standalone" application, maybe.
This is what you can do already with pkgsrc or (perhaps to a slightly
lesser degree) with ports. Just build the "standalone" application and
its dependencies with a LOCALBASE of /opt/myapp and make a tarball of
the whole thing.
I'm not sure I understand. The config would go in the sandbox as well in
a ./etc directory. Of course, it has the potential of duplicating
configs as well.
But if you had to learn how to configure package x, you can configure it
again without to much effort. And you don't have to struggle to make it
work at the same time for package y and for package z.
The reason why this is not used by default for normal system
distribution is the high amount of redundancy and that not every
dependency just works out of the box. As soon as a library needs a
config file itself, you have to break the sandbox and you loose most
advantages in that case.
You have a point. However, little research has gone into this kind of
system so its inherent difficulties haven't been tackled. Also, most
software is written in the mindset of the "big holistic /usr/local",
maybe adding further complication.
I've just come to think that such a system would fit nicely into the
DragonflyBSD attitude to "simplify to scale".
I don't beleive that much in vfs voodoo anymore.
best regards to all
In summary, this concept works best for distributing "shrinkware" like
Office programs, but is not such a good concept as general package