On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:45:23AM +0200, Han Boetes wrote: > Hi, > > I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative > package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather > fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.
> As you can see it contains nothing more than the bare minimum > which defines how to build and fake-install a source-code package. > > If you can see why this is an advantage to you please read on: > > > In 2000 Per Liden started CRUX-Linux, a distro based on > simplicity. The idea for the ports system was influenced by BSD > ports, but written in sh and C++, the Pkgfiles which define how a > package should be build are nothing but simple shell-scripts. > > Cruxports for OpenBSD is a port/rewrite of the CRUX ports-system > to OpenBSD, and is completely written in sh, except for a simple > parser written in C. > > Now I hear you say: "What's wrong with the normal ports?" > Well... wrong is a big word. It's just a matter of personal > preference I think. But let me give you a list of reasons why I > prefer cruxports. > > * Lightweight. Okay, I'll grant you, that is good. Not that the official pkg_* tools are especially heavyweight... > * Always the latest versions of software, no matter which > release you use. > * CRUX ports are much easier to create and maintain since the > ports are shell-based. > * Portable, anyone can read and understand a cruxport. These are debatable. The first issue is basically no more useful than trying to build a port on a less recent system than it was written for, which is quite possible and works more often than not at this time. The other other two points are basically matters of taste, and I'm not going to throw out the entire ports tree for a matter of taste. > * Dependencies are optional. > * It's not trying to be braindead-proof. > * No checking of md5sum on uninstall of files. These are all not quite advantages. > * Files in /etc are installed, and maintained with a mergemaster > like application (rejmerge) in a sane and easy way. Okay, that might be useful. > * You can easily share your own ports with others with httpup. This is already possible via several venues. > * Does not conflict with other package-managers. > * You can build packages from alternative sources like > binaries or CVS. The ports system can be abused to do this, too. > my c4o page can be found at: > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/c4o/ All in all, why? The pkg_* tools work fine, and have several advantages over what you have now. There might be some value in extending them with a mergemaster-like application (though quite possibly not), but otherwise I don't see the point. Joachim
