Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

[Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@xxxxxxx>]

> <4303571D.9050306@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43036a16$0$739$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <430395f8$0$741$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.103.32.140
X-Trace: 1124310926 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 740 68.103.32.140
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3864

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:54:32 +0200, Erik P. Skaalerud wrote:

> 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?

I guess, it's either because people keep talk with no action ;-) or
DragonFly isn't ready unless it is. Onebase Linux[1] has its own package
system that support both source and binary, but I never knew how good it
is compare to the others.

[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/onebase/onebaselinux.com/Support/olm-guide.php

Cheers,
Mezz

> 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 
> ports/pkgsrc)
> 
> I dont know about you other guys, but a system like this would be a 
> dream for me.
> 
> - Erik