Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:53:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FYI:
http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/02/12/950417940.html
I don't really see anything new here. People have observed the need
for a simple unified packaging system for a few years now. The trick
is not observing the problem, it is doing the work.
Package management is related to autoconf only in the sense that
autoconf is a configuration management tool. I don't see that package
management would work the way that autoconf does--with feature tests
and the like. Package management needs to simply know its targets.
Package management is more related to automake: the goal is a simple
set of rules which can be converted into a complex result.
I personally don't think it is possible to write a general install
script API that does not require escaping to straight shell scripts.
That is, I don't think it is possible to write a single package
manager which can do everything that is needed for all systems.
However, I tend to be a pessimist in these matters.
I personally think that a better technical solution would be:
* pick an existing packaging system and bless it
* develop real GNU/Linux configuration file standards, so that the
blessed system could actually work on all GNU/Linux systems
* write conversion programs for package systems that weren't blessed
* convince everybody to use the blessed package system
* let non-GNU/Linux systems write conversion programs to themselves
which complain bitterly about unsupported shell scripts
However, this is no doubt politically impossible.
Ian
