Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:46:41 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Jeremy <Peter.Jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Package management Message-ID: <199804181046.UAA18993@gsms01.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT), David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804181046.UAA18993>