Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]
joerg at britannica.bec.de
Thu Aug 18 06:36:10 PDT 2005
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -0000, Andreas Hauser wrote:
> hmp wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:28:19 +0100:
> > >>Can we not use ports or pkgsrc as our build part of the problem, and
> > >>produce packages that are understandable by APT* ?
> I am not at all convinced that some other backend solves the problem.
> But making ports/pkgsrc produce other binary pkg types would be cool.
For pkgsrc there is some support to convert packages into rpm or Solaris
style packages. But I agree that switching the backend doesn't solve
anything. dpkg doesn't offer much the current pkg_* don't provide, the
few things are more related to being able to handle cases like libc
> > Source level upgrades have always created some form of problem for me and
> > it seems a lot of other people as well. Definitely not something that is
> > viable or trust-worthy.
> No it's something you do on a special build host until you produce a quality
> of packages you are satisfied with. Then you distribute those packages
> to your other hosts. That is certainly power i am not willing to give up.
chroot and jail makes this easier, but again, I agree with you. It's the
same thing all Linux distros do BTW.
> It doubt there will be 10000 "perfectly working binary" packages.
The question of whether you can keep a snapshot of 10,000 packages
resonable current depends ultimately on the resouces you have to build.
It is possible, but autoconf tries hard to make more expensive.
More information about the Users