Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:58:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com> To: Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SSH2 (in FreeBSD-Questions) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906050951080.25971-100000@megaweapon.zigg.com> In-Reply-To: <871118459.928584054@ripley.tavari.muc.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Lutz Albers wrote: : Do you know the Modules package (www.modules.org). This might spare you the : symlink game. You specify which environment variables are to be changed and : then just say 'module add <package>' or 'module rm <package>'. : Granted, you need a patched shell to support the resulting long PATH : variable, but on the plus side it gives you the possibility to install and : use multiple version of a package without major problems (i.e. different : gtk versions) Yeah, I've heard of it, but didn't get too much farther than looking at it. It looks interesting, and very well-planned, but I guess I fail to see the advantage of it over symlinks, especially because there is a lot of groundwork to cover. Is there something inherently bad about symlinks? :-) I mean, with the symlink structure, adding packges is very clean, and removing packages is as easy as rm -rf /opt/package, and rescanning the symlinks (better yet -- a script could be easily written up to look for orphaned symlinks, entirely in an automatic fashion.) The only thing that I have to munge with is patching the source tarballs before running everything *sigh* :-) Matt Behrens <matt@zigg.com> Owner/Administrator, zigg.com Chief Engineer, Nameless IRC Network To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9906050951080.25971-100000>