From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 18 03:47:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA07786 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 03:47:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gatekeeper.alcatel.com.au (gatekeeper.alcatel.com.au [203.17.66.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07772 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:47:24 GMT (envelope-from Peter.Jeremy@alcatel.com.au) Received: from mfg1.cim.alcatel.com.au ([139.188.23.1]) by gatekeeper.alcatel.com.au (PMDF V5.1-7 #U2695) with ESMTP id <01IW10VP7T7K0004M1@gatekeeper.alcatel.com.au> for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:48 +1000 Received: from cbd.alcatel.com.au by cim.alcatel.com.au (PMDF V5.1-10 #U2695) with ESMTP id <01IW10VNEB00B4UKVU@cim.alcatel.com.au> for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:46 +1000 Received: from gsms01.alcatel.com.au by cbd.alcatel.com.au (PMDF V5.1-7 #U2695) with ESMTP id <01IW10VKX80GAZTT1B@cbd.alcatel.com.au> for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:42 +1100 Received: (from jeremyp@localhost) by gsms01.alcatel.com.au (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA18993 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:41 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:41 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Jeremy Subject: RE: Package management To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <199804181046.UAA18993@gsms01.alcatel.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT), David Wolfskill wrote: I wrote: >>BTW, how much commercial s/w actually uses that ABI? >? As to the point that a lot of (commercial) stuff fails to use the >"package" mechanism, yes, that's annoying (and your efforts to get the >vendors to approximate reasonableness are to be commended!) > >But what has that to do with an "ABI"? The `ABI' defines how a program is packaged as well the executable format and system call mechanism. Whilst a package format mightn't sound relevant to running an executable, it is critical for building shrink-wrapped software. >>This would also make it relatively easy to support multiple, different >>package formats (as long as the command-line interfaces were not too >>dissimilar). > >I don't see that as a necessary condition, if a "wrapper" interface might >be reasonably fabricated. That's the way I see it - if a wrapper interface _can_ be reasonably fabricated, then the interfaces are not `too dissimilar'. >> I've >>previously avoided using the SystemV packages for this reason Actually, there were some other issues as well, and it wasn't totally my decision, but I was trying to point out that the SystemV tools aren't perfect. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message