Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:26:42 -0400 From: "Antoine Beaupre (LMC)" <Antoine.Beaupre@ericsson.ca> To: libh@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Richy Kim <richy@apple.com> Subject: Re: packagetool.tcl Message-ID: <3B2F8B52.2090100@lmc.ericsson.se> References: <20010614124213.A41047@fump.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de> <200106141756.KAA11439@scv3.apple.com> <20010615171239.B935@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d> <20010619115903.F65489@bohr.physics.purdue.edu> <20010619191557.B667@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Langer wrote: > Thus spake Will Andrews (will@physics.purdue.edu): > >>>everything is possible from TCL (kinda easy once OpenPackages has a >>>package system .-) ) >>> >>I'm curious. What part of OP do you intend to merge? AFAIK libh >>is a package library and as such would be part of OP, not the other >>way around. > > libh's package library completely uses TCL for everything. > OpenPackages wants its own packaging format, so we have to support > OpenPackages format in libh's libs. Using tcl, you also mean in the package install procedures? I mean, to replace the usual @exec tags and other PLIST items of the old system? As I understood from Jordan's inital proposal, TCL would be a way to sandbox these installs.. And OP is moving away from that? Kind of a shame... :) > I'm not happy about this (since libh's package stuff already works), > but it happened, that a second group wanted to create a new package > format. You know, I'm now strongly participating in OP's package > format work, so that the ideas in libh aren't lost. I hope this will turn all well. We *do not* want to get forked into RPMs, DEBs, and all that crap. ;) You rule. keep on the good work. A. 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?3B2F8B52.2090100>