Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:30:22 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Rich Morin" <rdm@cfcl.com> Subject: Re: XML-based ports system ? Message-ID: <013f01c0e87e$2fc5f640$931576d8@inethouston.net> References: <20010528105709.A9284@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> <p05001905b739a3d1c212@[192.168.168.205]> <00f601c0e879$82aaeaa0$931576d8@inethouston.net> <p05001906b739b197fef3@[192.168.168.205]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The ideal situation (IMHO) would be to separate the package and OS > information as much as possible. This would make it possible for > the same package description to handle a range of OS targets. This > is a difficult thing to accomplish, however, and may take a few years > of careful development. In the meanwhile, why not do a few, trivial > things that will allow all of the BSDs to stop duplicating effort? It looks like you need to read a little more on openpackages. This is what openpackages is supposed to fix. Changing the entire structure of ports to XML files isn't as simple as it may seem due to the pure number of ports. It would make more sense for openpackages to do this since they are already starting out from scratch. > In short, I think I would rather see the OpenPackages folks take the > (relatively) small step needed to join the current Ports collections. > With that out of the way, a move to an abstract system would be far > simpler to accomplish. Why not have them do it now while they're basically starting from scratch. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?013f01c0e87e$2fc5f640$931576d8>