Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> writes: > On 12 April 2011 00:45, pancake <panc...@youterm.com> wrote: >> Slpm is probably much simpler than any ports system out there. It >> still needs some love..But it works for my use cases. >> >> I recommend you to take a look on it. :) >> >> I already packaged musl, tcc and other stuff in slpm > > I don't see the point in a package _manager_ at all. > > What I do see is to have something like ports or build scripts that > build/bootstrap the system and create binaries for future updating > purposes (or security fixes). My personal choice/preference for this > would be a ports system based on mk files -- some volunteers > contributed early steps in this direction already.
That's how it works for sabotage so far: ./build-stage1 ./build-pkg will completely update the system (I guess I'll switch to a dependency-based approach since I already have a fair share of packages). The whole thing should be DESTDIR-ready, so you can install into a chroot for testing or building file sets. Plain users simply unpack these file sets into /. > Ideally the system would be kept up to date using rsync or just git > pull, that's what I intend with sta.li (once I have more extra time). git pull works as well already. :) -- Christian Neukirchen <chneukirc...@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
