>>>>> "Rusty" == Rusty Ballinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rusty> - As a developer who builds & distributes packages, I'd love a
Rusty> tool which abstracts platform-specific packaging, the same way
Rusty> autoconf & automake abstract platform-specific building. I
Rusty> don't want to become a member of every packaging tool's
Rusty> community; I just want it to be easy to build a variety of
Rusty> package formats from a single source tree & package
Rusty> description.
I wasn't fully clear.
I do think it would be useful. However it seems that most package
maintainers are not also the package developers. And, most package
maintainers only develop for a single platform.
Rusty> - As an end user who builds & installs software on my own
Rusty> systems, I would rather build & install a package appropriate
Rusty> to my system than "make install".
That's interesting. I don't hear that much!
>> Introducing another tool would probably just make things harder for
>> Debian/RPM package maintainers.
Rusty> How so? (If they don't want to use the tool, they don't have
Rusty> to!)
Yeah, you're right.
Anyway I think the big problem is sub-package breakdown. Maybe this
is solveable. I'm willing to put patches into automake that help with
`autopackage'.
The automake-related idea I had was that installable objects would be
marked by the sub-package they belong to. Something like:
lib_LIBRARIES = libfoo.a
devel_header_HEADERS = foo/foo.h
Tom
