[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New package managment
<a lot snipped for brevity>
> To make it short, I think there is still no need for a binary package
> system, dpkg/apt does a fantastic job. Please, don't try to fix
> something that is not broken. If you think there is something missing
> in dpkg/apt than please explain that a bit further.
> For source packages, its true that there is something missing, but
> there is no need for a packagement system or something similar, the
> autoweb idea simple (as it does not try to replace something, but
> instead extened it) and great, it does only need somebody to implement
> it and test it.
Well let me start off by saying I have toggled back to the rpm side of
things I think. dpkg seems kind of neet but a few things bother me about it.
As far as apt I really have not played with it all that much. What I am
thinking of could very well be covered by apt-get. But since I am now
looking at rpm's I don't think apt get can help me. But I am not sure. One
reason for packaging everything together is not with download in mind but
rather for cd-instalation.
I am really working on a mini-dist that (I hope) will be able to build
itself. One of my aims is for independece from the kernel. ie using
non-linux kernels. I know there are already a million distrobutions but I am
doing it for a grade :)
I will look into apt some more, one of the files I was reading mentioned not
being fully emplimented. The reason for going with rpm is that it is
mentioned in the LSB spec's which seem really really incompleate. And I dont
see debian going over to the dark side and using rpm's but who knows.
In the end it will be more of an installer/make script thingy not really
divorcing itself from the underlying packaging system. ie you could still
install just regular rpms or source packages.
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com