Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:59:34 -0500 From: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports and PBIs Message-ID: <1270961974.13132.41.camel@balrog.2hip.net> In-Reply-To: <4BC088D3.3010908@incunabulum.net> References: <4BBFD502.1010507@elischer.org> <4BC088D3.3010908@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 15:18 +0100, Bruce Simpson wrote: > On 04/10/10 02:31, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > Alfred Perlstein , Matt at ix systems Kris (Mr PBI), some > > others and I, felt that these ideas seemed to make some sense > > and so I put them here for comment. > > Please do. Someone has to do something about deployment. > > For what it's worth, I've tripped over the garden rake on the ground, > that is 'unsatisfied dependency' one too many times in commercial work. > > If PBIs can address this, even for FreeBSD's embedded and server use > cases, they will likely be well recieved. If I understood the PBI construct correctly... How is this really that different than just producing static binaries? I mean, as I understood it, your bundling the binary and all of it's required libraries into a private directory tree and then playing linker games. robert. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1270961974.13132.41.camel>