[[ ... ]]
>
> Probably wise -- Debian is not generally speedy. And dpkg is
> undergoing some revamping at the moment.
>
> > I'm all for helping out with a common set of tools to manage
> > packages between BSD and Debian which is why I was among the
> > first handful or so of the peop
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 04:49:16PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > Both the ports tree and the pkg_* tools (which are *very*
> > similar in nature to apt-get, dselect, dpkg, ...) handle both
> > build and run dependencies transparently. The big thing missing
> > in the ports tree and associated to
> Both the ports tree and the pkg_* tools (which are *very*
> similar in nature to apt-get, dselect, dpkg, ...) handle both
> build and run dependencies transparently. The big thing missing
> in the ports tree and associated tools is when upgrading existing
> packages to newer versions. There are
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 02:26:40PM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
# I'm not suggesting a textbook experiment. What I am saying is that
# it seems possible to extend the apt-source tools to unpack software
# packages into a BSD ports tree to allow a native BSD build of software.
# It could handle bui
> > The first issue that comes up in these discussions is the License.
> > Most Linux systems are GPL/LGPL-based, while BSD's are (of course)
> > BSD-based. This is usually enought to ignate a religious war that
> > causes everyone to go home angry with no work done.
>
> I think that given the BS
> You make it seem worse than it is :)
And there we disagree... anything less than proper dependency-aware
upgrade simply doesn't count. This is a *hard* problem which is why
so much of the value of dpkg is in the "interesting" cases it
handles. It would be nice to see that independently appear
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 03:49:31PM -0400, Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> > And I ask you: Why? Why would someone want to go through
> > the trouble when the BSD ports tree is already there and tested?
>
> One word: "upgrade"
>
> Last I checked, simple things like "upgrading a package that has
> depend
> And I ask you: Why? Why would someone want to go through
> the trouble when the BSD ports tree is already there and tested?
One word: "upgrade"
Last I checked, simple things like "upgrading a package that has
dependencies" was no better than "rip everything out and then
reinstall what you upg
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:23:26AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > >Alright I can't just sit quietly any longer. :) I don't remember
> > >all the "flames" on this list that everyone is spouting off about.
> > >What I remember was that there was a mixture of emotions of whether
> > >this was going
glibc of any version will run fine in it's home in /compat/linux,
using the linuxlator (syscall translation)
As for it not being there natively, this isn't a problem. The BSD
libc is one of BSD's strong points.
-Dan Papasian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:16:16AM -0700, Anant K
> >Alright I can't just sit quietly any longer. :) I don't remember
> >all the "flames" on this list that everyone is spouting off about.
> >What I remember was that there was a mixture of emotions of whether
> >this was going to create a fork. The way I see it there are two
> >possibilities here
ISFAIRC the major problem is that the glibc 2.0 is not
ported to BSD yet.
--Anant
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
12 matches
Mail list logo
