Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 13:37:27 -0800 From: Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.org> To: "Simon L . Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk> Cc: binup@FreeBSD.org, libh@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: current project steps Message-ID: <20011028133727.A15301@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20011026135930.03D1637B406@hub.freebsd.org>; from simon@nitro.dk on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 03:58:51PM %2B0200 References: <20011020202153.A76835@FreeBSD.org> <20011026135930.03D1637B406@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Could this maybe be done with the current makefiles? I don't know enough > about the FreeBSD build system to know that, but from what I have seen it > looks like the makefiles contains much of the information needed (program > names, program locations and so on). Yes, this is my hope. > Exactly what kinds of problems to you see if the base system is using > packages? I would guess when installing from source the only difference is > that you compile the packages yourself? Of course to find a way to give the > self compiled version package version numbers might be a bit tricky Well, I'm sort of thinking that the usual version numbers aren't really an optimal solution. For example, take a look at the voodoo involved with the current package tools They still break down in a number of circumstances, mostly depending on what people think letters in version numbers should mean. I'm fond of date stamps for this reason. We could keep supplied version numbers around for various reasons, but the actual version would simply be the date of the latest change, like 200110281332. This always increases forward, and will never require hacks like PORT_EPOCH. > Hmm, I have been reading the document Jordan wrote about libh > (http://www.freebsd.org/projects/libh.html), but I don't really know exactly > what have been done in libh and how much overlap there is between libh and > the reworking of the pacakge system.. I'm hoping joe writes up his ideas and posts them more mailing lists sometime soon. I think he and paul are really on the right track to coming up with a solid and extensible solution. Perhaps their ideas can be worked into what libh has got so far, or maybe things will just be borrowed from libh. In any case, it seems to me that the next generation of FreeBSD packages needs to be discussed on lists like -arch and -hackers instead of just -binup and -libh. 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?20011028133727.A15301>