Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:33:11 +0000 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: nclayton@lehman.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, nik@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNU Stow, and the ports system? Message-ID: <19990331213311.C14649@rucus.ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <199903302217.OAA41059@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami on Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 02:17:47PM -0800 References: <19990330085646.T14492@lehman.com> <19990330113617.A22325@rucus.ru.ac.za> <199903302217.OAA41059@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 1999-03-30 (14:17), Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami wrote: > * infighting). If you're interested in the concept more than the program, > * I'm willing to do the coding, if you're not interesting in that part and > * were thinking of using Stow. > > No need to reinvent the wheel, this is not the kernel so we don't have > a problem with GPL's software (or we'll have to rewrite the compiler...). Stow is reasonably old, and needs a good rewrite in any case, and I've been planning to write something like it for a while now. In any case, stow is a reinvented wheel of depot, which admittedly is way too complex. Stow is a bit too simple too, and there are some seriously missing bits in it, which I'd like to add, and has some weird inconsistencies which I'd like to fix. The GPL/BSD thing only really applies in my mind to integration with the ports system, which doesn't seem to have any bits of it GPL as yet. (the compiler doesn't count - it's not a requirement that we use only it) Since I believe we'll do more work on it that was done to create stow, someone might as well write a version from scratch. And I'd like to write the majority of the "stow" system in C, for possible inclusion in an envisaged libpkg (which would have the usual perl and python modules, etc). This libpkg would then be used in future packaging programs. (which is talking many ages in the future) In any case, the C code would be of more use on the boot floppy when we install programs - the stow perl bits would not usable, and I think providing a consistent interface to the packaging system is essential. (of course, I may be wrong) (and we need a new trendy name for it) Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990331213311.C14649>