Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

[Hiten Pandya <hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
In-Reply-To: <20050817142119.GD966@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.18.88.18
X-Trace: 1124292394 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 740 82.18.88.18
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.users:3850

As you said Joerg, that apt/dpkg* are good for managing packages then for 
building them; this seems to be backed by Andreas as well.

One of the only reason why I am still holding onto pkgsrc is because it 
has (atleast) some support for views or shall I say isolated installations 
of same package but different version; apart from that pkgsrc has no 
overall advantage over FreeBSD ports.

Another issue here, is that we have un-substantiated claims that FreeBSD 
port maintainers will not accept patch files to make ports work on 
DragonFly?  I have yet to see any evidence on this matter.

 > Please, let us abandone the idea of incrementally updating from source,
 > it is evil and the side-effects of not partially removing the dependency
 > trees don't justify it.

I agree here, it does not always work well.

Can we not use ports or pkgsrc as our build part of the problem, and 
produce packages that are understandable by APT* ?

In my opinion, the option to build packages is only useful to people who 
want extreme modifications to their applications.  I am sure most people, 
including me would not really care about source packages; I for one would 
not bother building OpenOffice or KDE locally, total waste of time.

Extremely important to get binary package management right, including 
dependency handling, (automatic) updating.


			Hiten Pandya
			hmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx