[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Naming (Re: Unified packages. )
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Chris Coleman wrote:
> > This presumes that we intend to not only provide a working common ports
> > tree, but also provide packages for each os/arch supported. Might I suggest
> > that this is abit forward for a beginning project? Think of the disk space.
> > Distfiles maybe, but packages for everybody and every arch?
> > Just a silly thought, but how about the 'official package distributions'
> > be done by each os .. and the 'bsdports' group or whatever we eventually
> > call it .. can focus on making sure things are uptodate and working ..
> > and not providing packages, which is imho an entirely separate effort
> > entirely .
> I see packages as a by product of the ports collection. To test, I
> envision daily build servers that build snapshots of the packages
I do. Like I said before, I think we really have two tasks at
hand. Each is charaterized by the primary tool used. The first task is
the "make" task, and the second part is the "package tool" part.
I think the "make" task is where we will start, and that is also
the one that nets us, developers, the most bang. The packaging part can be
unified, or it could be localized. We talked about Solaris packaging for
example. pkg_add or swinstall, neither of them matter until we have built
binaries through the make system.
I'd like to shift the focus back to the make related challenges.
[ email@example.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ]
To unsubscribe: send mail to <firstname.lastname@example.org>
with "unsubscribe bsdports" in the body of the message