Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:06:04 -0500 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> To: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.freebsd.org>, Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.ORG>, binup@FreeBSD.ORG, libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: current project steps Message-ID: <20011028160603.B71544@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20011028202720.H3223@tao.org.uk> References: <joe@tao.org.uk> <2335.1004298360@winston.freebsd.org> <20011028202720.H3223@tao.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun Oct 28, 2001 at 08:27:20PM +0000, Josef Karthauser wrote: > 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. >=20 > 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.=20 There is indeed a lack of documentation in libh that must be corrected. > 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. Libh has been dormant for periods. That doesn't make libh less interesting to me. :) > 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 =20 > "new world view" the existing ports, live along side a "package" =20 > module for installing binary upgrades, BSDPAN, rpm and others. It > should be extremely easy (via the writing of a single module) to =20 > bolt in a whole new repository of packages and have it just work =20 > 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. You know, this is just the thing libh doesn't and cannot take care of. The pkg/ports duality. Mostly because, as you said, libh doesn't have a lot of influence over the main tree, in great part because it *isn't* into the main tree and built as parts of make worlds, etc. But mostly because libh is a package system, and /usr/src and /usr/ports are the packages. ;) Even having it there as a "switch" could be a great improvement. :) People could start experimenting with the new package scheme. This is a project that could be started in parallel with libh: formalization of the build process, where the build process includes source access, patching, configuration, building, etc. The new package system (ie libh package system) is fine, I think. The hard part is now to integrate packages more nicely into the src trees. Make /usr/src distros packages. Make /usr/ports be nicer with packages and, why not, make the actual port skeletons "packages" in a repository. That would adress the API problems you mentionned about ports not accessing INDEX directly and things like that.. A. --FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW 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 iEYEARECAAYFAjvcczoACgkQttcWHAnWiGfdKgCfakziVE9cpdoMJHXROyVmiJik CAEAn1gA5aC/24jD8uw4K5pmp1KCu2ey =wf90 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW-- 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?20011028160603.B71544>