From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Dec 6 14:02:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA18065 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA18052; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 14:02:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr02.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA11042; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:02:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr02.primenet.com(206.165.6.202) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd011021; Sat Dec 6 15:02:43 1997 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA09641; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:01:41 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199712062201.PAA09641@usr02.primenet.com> Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? To: regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk (Philippe Regnauld) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:01:41 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19971205233816.15333@deepo.prosa.dk> from "Philippe Regnauld" at Dec 5, 97 11:38:16 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > This should probably wait for ELF, though, since all the other BSD's > > are ELF now... > > Argh. Now my question :-) -- apart from our ports/package system, > there also exists at least 2 other package systems out there (all > Linux): > > - debian package (with hard/soft dependencies scheme) > - RedHat > > And I know we have the "rpm" tool in /usr/port/misc. > > How difficult/sick/twisted would it be to have some kind > of skeleton like "ports" which would be a superset of > wrappers for RPM/Debian _packages_ (not so many, only > the binary stuff we can't get in source), and then > go into the "/usr/ports/blah/foo" and do make, just > like we did when BSDI Netscape was in ports ? > > (or even better: pkg_add ApplixWare-x.x.rpm) ? I think you will want the ports/packages framework. The FreeBSD framework is less system dependent in that it can rely on source instead of binary without having to build a per package script specifically for each thing to be compiled. I would discourage rpm. I actually see this as an opportunity to get a set of tools that is the same across all BSD platforms. The problem with doing Linux at the same time (by adopting the Linux tools) is threefold: 1) BSDI is unlikely to be willing to have to become a GPL code distribution site (more than they already have to by virtue of GCC). 2) None of the BSD's are likely to want to include GPL'ed code as a critical system component. RPM can never be more than an "also-ran", IMO. 3) Linux, of course, should adopt the FreeBSD tools so it can use the packages disks out of the box. ;-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.