From: | "Devon H. O'Dell " <dodell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:48:06 +0200 |
Mail-followup-to: | kernel@crater.dragonflybsd.org |
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:30:42PM +0000, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > Bill Hacker wrote: > >> I think that it would behoove the BSDs to more tightly coordinate > >> the package systems. Especially, I think that for a smaller and > >> more progressive project like DragonFly, there are more important > >> and interesting things to be doing than building another ports or > >> pkgsrc replacement. I'm happy to see DFBSD not leaning that way. > >> > > > >The 'challenges' here manifold: > > > >- Of close-on 12,000 ports (packaged or not) there are > >probably fewer than fifty that "really, really, matter". > > > >- *which fifty* varies by whom you ask, and even their needs > >vary from one project, client, server or day of week to another. > > Try installing GNOME? Or KDE? Both of those "really, really matter." > KDE alone brings the number to about 70 (using pkgsrc), by my count. I don't use either of them. I don't want them. They don't matter at all. I'm not even using DF as a desktop system. This is the point Bill is making. > >- the vast majority of the source code is witten and maintained > >by folks who are either inactive, sporadically active, not specifically > >targeting the *BSDs, or any/all of the above. > > > >Which leads to depending on a large and diverse number of > >volunteers, each maintaining one or several ports in which they > >have both an interest, and the necessary expertise. > > Which already exists for FreeBSD, and I suppose for pkgsrc too. David > Rhodus and friends seem to have a good job with pkgsrc on DFly, though > there are huge holes still. It would just be nice to pool those > resources. One bottleneck with the FreeBSD ports system is that every > patch has to wait for a committer to be committed. Their gnats DB is > full of uncommitted ports patches. It would be nice to figure out > some way about that. Again, I think it should be possible to learn > from Debian: all their packages are contributed by volunteers too. About the only things I like about apt is that it's a binary system and that upgrades are easy. I don't really care what system I use as long as it makes upgrading easy for me and doesn't require me to spend hours of CPU time to build things to stay up-to-date with packages (yes, this is a problem even when you don't use Gnome or KDE -- even when you're not using DragonFly as a desktop ;). > If it is possible to build GNOME and KDE out of the box, that should > take care of 95% of the remaining software. And a lot of the other > build errors may be quite trivial to fix, if there's a build box > generating new packages each time there's a change in the ports or > pkgsrc tree. Only for desktop systems. I use my DragonFly machines for different machines entirely; my desktops use either blackbox or rio from plan9port. > >If any of the *BSD's were to try to bring this whole area > >'in from the cold' and put it under a formal process, they would > >probably have to drop the number of supported items to > >10% of the current 'body count'. > > IMO, pkgsrc is already a huge improvement over ports, without being > uncomfortably different. If the other BSDs would just adopt it, it > would be a big gain for everyone. > > Rahul Wishful thinking :) --Devon
Attachment:
pgp00005.pgp
Description: PGP signature