Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:02:33 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> To: jos@catnook.com, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <200207151902.g6FJ2Xg8010625@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: <mailpost.1026758295.9888@thuvia.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: jos@catnook.com (Jos Backus) > Date: Mon 15 Jul, 2002 > Subject: Re: Package system flaws? > If portability is at all important, I think we should abandon discussing the > FreeBSD pkg_* tools (and portupgrade) and focus on what the OpenPackages > people are doing. I wouldn't go that far. A portable application vendor can always just skip the system's preferred packaging tools and use tar(1) and an install script if necessary. However, packaging the application up for platforms you care about isn't excessively painful, even if a universal set of tools would be the ideal situation. Most if the pain in developing portable applications lies elsewhere; all the packaging tools do is allow the vendor to transport the results of "make install" on his system to the customer's system in a reliable and reproducible way. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Valentine, Thuvia Labs <mark@thuvia.co.uk> <http://www.thuvia.co.uk>; "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." Mark Valentine uses "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* and endorses FreeBSD -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>; <http://www.freebsd.org>; To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207151902.g6FJ2Xg8010625>