Re: New FreeBSD package system (a.k.a. Daemon Package System (dps))

In <20070511021249.GA78729@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:03:22PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
In <20070511015156.GA77895@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kris Kennaway <kris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:47:49PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
In <f20c8u$htp$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxx> typed:
I cannot currently actively participate in implementing proposed things,
but I can give advice on sqlite, database and xml schemas if anyone
wants to...
One of the things that would be nice for a replacement to do would be
to correctly install i386 packages on amd64 platforms (and similar
things).
This has nothing to do with a new packaging system and can be done
today if someone cares enough to work on it.

Well, yeah - *anything* can be done if someone cares enough to work on
it - it's all just SMOP. You could definitely put enough smarts into
the package installer do this without actually changing the packaging
system. But if we're gonna change the packaging system anyway, why not
consider adding information that the package building software already
has so that the package installer software doesn't have to try and
figure it out?

Sure, we could pile on some more features onto a 6 year old design
document that never got out of the design phase, or someone could just
go and make the relatively minor changes to support i386 packages on
amd64 now. I guess it's always more fun to build dream castles though
:)

Last time I looked into this, it didn't look relatively minor to
me. But hey, if there's a document listing what needs to be done
somewhere and it's really relatively minor, I need this bad enough to
deal with that. On the other hand, if no one has actually done the
work to figure out what this would really take, is wishful thinking
really enough to keep a very desirable feature (well, it's desirable
enough that most Linux platforms seem to offer it) from even being
considered?

Not gonna happen as a default, but you can change it on your systems
if you like.
Not very reliably.
Best I can offer ;)

Is this the new motto for FreeBSD? Good QA practices would have the
ports built with that knob set to something something other than the
default at regular intervals. Lately things have been better, but
I've found broken things in the last twelve months.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages