Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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-libh" 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>