Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:27:20 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.freebsd.org> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org>, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.ORG>, binup@FreeBSD.ORG, libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: current project steps Message-ID: <20011028202720.H3223@tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <2335.1004298360@winston.freebsd.org>; from jkh@winston.freebsd.org on Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 11:46:00AM -0800 References: <joe@tao.org.uk> <2335.1004298360@winston.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--e5bfZ/T2xnjpUIbw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 11:46:00AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > p.s. libh folken - please don't get the impression that we're > > poo-poo'ing what you'd done. Not at all. We're all on the same > > ultimate side here. >=20 > I don't think anyone has gotten that impression, though I think > perhaps a few of us would have been far more gratified by this > discussion had you FIRST studied libh and THEN begin discussing what > you either wanted or didn't want it to do. To do it in the reverse > order only forces everyone to go through the process of sorting out > misunderstandings before any truly constructive dialog can begin. Understood. In my defence however, libh isn't currently developed in an 'in your face' way like most of the tree is (there are a few pserver type changes that need to be made first to pull it into ncvs/projects). It's not immediately obvious to people outside of the libh project what it is or isn't. It appears from the outside to be a project that's been on the boil for a long time without affecting the main tree in any significant way. My motivations were spawned by involvement with the development of the BSDPAN module for installing perl-cpan modules, with automatic registration in the package database. Try installing a perl module by hand on -current to see what I mean. It could do with being integrated more completely into the packaging infrastructure. Nothing I've seen so far even considers this kind of thing. In my "new world view" the existing ports, live along side a "package" module for installing binary upgrades, BSDPAN, rpm and others. It should be extremely easy (via the writing of a single module) to bolt in a whole new repository of packages and have it just work with whatever packaging tools, and database backend are currently being used. It seems unwieldly to have so many p5- and ruby- ports in existence when by integrating one module each we could make _all_ of the perl, or ruby modules available in one fell swoop. Joe --e5bfZ/T2xnjpUIbw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvcaigACgkQXVIcjOaxUBZHowCfaLwUGfMmMrri3ZrFusmUwBD8 pPIAn31XvKaVDbCalOG2iBZhDOub0ymq =s9OH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --e5bfZ/T2xnjpUIbw-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011028202720.H3223>