Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:43:34 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: chrisc@vmunix.com, kris@obsecurity.org, libh@FreeBSD.ORG, op-tech@openpackages.org Subject: Re: PackageNG and OpenPackages Message-ID: <20010329144334.A9413@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> In-Reply-To: <20010329142742L.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>; from jkh@osd.bsdi.com on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 02:27:42PM -0800 References: <20010329140754K.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103291712460.58715-100000@vnode.vmunix.com> <20010329142742L.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 02:27:42PM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > Well, I'm not sure I'd use the word "assimilated" - you guys are > sounding like the Borg now. :) Let's just say that we all hope some of > its technology is relevant to other projects, both in whole or in > part, and that both efforts manage to attract enough people to make > this whole issue something of genuine relevance to our daily lives. I think the best solution at this time is for the two projects to keep each other in mind, but leave it at that. For OP this means thinking about package building in such a way that building package bundles other then OP packages is plugable. For example, what ever we might think of RPMs there's some value in allowing someone to maintain a module that lets you use the packaging framework to build them. Or for that matter, .deb packages or whatever MacOS X uses or (horror of horrors) InstallShield packages for Windows. We can and should maintain our own package system (if for no other reasion then the fact that maintianing thousands of packages in an integrated framework will give us insights other's just won't have), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support other systems. For PackageNG, this means keeping an eye on OP any lobbying for features you need. Once something more or less works, building a module for OP to generate PackageNG packages. If PackageNG lives up to its promise/hype it seems likely OP could adopt it. The two projects have a significant intersection, but they aren't attacking the same problem. In any case, as Jordan says, two projects can well be better then one, especialy when they attack the same problem space from different, but equaly legitimate directions. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6w7qVXY6L6fI4GtQRAszbAJ4pn+4E7OR8h4/tW3mo1YyKEVpOBwCgrJNi i9v32ZuJsDCjV5DEB0bLKWk= =5wDc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010329144334.A9413>