[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. 

-Bryan Coleman

Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com