On Thu, 29 May 2003, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> [snip]
> P.S.: maybe it's just that I'm using FreeBSD more and more, but its
> "ports system" seems to me better each time I think of it (it is a
> collection of some 8000 Makefiles that contains instruction to download
> source form original website, apply patch if necessary, compile and
> install as a system package).
> It is true, of course, that most of the people out there wouln't like to
> compile things, but when it's an automatic non-interactive script, it
> can be a little better maybe.
Hey, why not put the source in the binary package, and have the
postinstall script compile and install the binaries? Nothing prevents you
from doing that now, AFAICS, and, though a bit weird, it's not much worse
than extracting a tarball (as mingw-runtime does). Package dependences
will have to be considered carefully, however -- the binary package will
depend on at least gcc and make, perhaps autotools and others...
> This reminds me that maybe it could be cool to have an "install" option
> in "type 2 packages" that installs them directly, without bothering to
> have a "fake" local setup.ini, starting setup, let it install the
> package... this would need some command line "installed package db"
> management of some kind. Or it is already out there, only I didn't
> notice it?
Isn't that what the RPM port eventually hopes to accomplish? ;-)
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
