DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2005-08
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

From: "Erik P. Skaalerud" <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:54:32 +0200

> <4303571D.9050306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43036a16$0$739$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <43036a16$0$739$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <430395f8$0$741$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Trace: 1124308472 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 741
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3862

As Joerg said earlier, why not rather look at _why_ people love to use 
apt instead of pkg_*?

Can't we just try to make our own packaging system (like apt wich is 
easy to use) wich could perhaps use packages as primary medium, but yet 
provide a posibillity to compile software like we do with ports/pkgsrc?

It's just a matter of specifying in a repo that XYZ package cannot be 
distrubuted binary, so it will just auto-default to compile it. And if 
"power users" wants to compile their own software, they can do that if 
they want to by turning on a compile-default flag instead of a standard 
binary-default flag (with being able to use flags like we already do in 

I dont know about you other guys, but a system like this would be a 
dream for me.

- Erik

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]