DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: packaging system (was: Re: GCC 3.3.2 kernel)

From: William Dean DeVries <look_in_message@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:31:33 -0800

    You know, you could put the needed headers in your source directory, and
if the compiler still can't find them I bet you could tell it wheretolook.
Just a thought.
    As for splitting packages into 2 or even better 3 parts.
The port system is redesigned it could be made to have flags
which would tell it to install the other parts of packages by
default.  Thus making everyone happy.
    In regards to having three plist in a packages, having three packages is
better.  To see why, suppose that you install a package with only the
binaries and later you go back to add the rest.  Maybe you could tell it
no binaries this time, but should it then remove the installed ones? 
Again just a thought.
    Also it would be better if the freebsd package system could be then
used on dragonfly.  If the new system had provisions to allow patches for
multiple system in the ports, it might be possible to use the same ports
for both system, and others too.  I am a ex-debian freebsd user, and will
stay freebsd.  I like my system stable.  This project is interesting
thou, but I know little about kernels.

    I am currently reading this thread and making a wish list of feature
for a new package management system.  I will probably post it later.  I
also plan to look at the features of dpkg discussed here.  I hate the
system used in freebsd, but like the idea behind it.

william_devries -AT- wsu.edu
(I hate spam and don't want to risk it)

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:27:37 +0000, ichel Talon wrote:

> ibotty <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:3fa25105$0$80977$415eb37d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 
>> this is exactly what debian (and some rpm-distributions) do.
>> they just split the (one) package into three.
>> this has some advantages:
>> packages are way smaller.
>> (e.g.: libfreetype6 340,9kB, libfreetype6-dev 676,1kB)
> This has zero advantage, except for embedded work (and people doing
> embedded work are able to do rm -rf /usr/include in their final
> distribution). Present day disks are minimum 50 Gigs, you can put all
> the includes and all the docs you want without ever encountering the
> slightest space problem. This stupidity of breaking packages into small
> parts is the  biggest nuisance by far i have with Linux distributions 
> (either rpm or debian ones). On 80 Linux machines we have in our lab i
> cannot find one which has the necessary include files each time i want
> to compile something. Not having the root passwd i cannot install the 
> devel packages. Moreover Linux people push this sort of idea to extreme 
> absurdity. Once i installed the gcc compiler on a machine and was not
> able to compile a single program, because crtbegin.o or something
> similar was absent. I tried to chase where this fucking thing was
> packaged in, only to be told that it was in libc6-dev !! In other words
> the great Debian packagers discovered in their infinite wisdom that
> someone who installs a compiler does so only for the pleasure of
> admiring assembly code. Please, in any BSD distro, don't listen to
> people who have failed miserably providing something convenient.

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man.
		-- Kronecker

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