On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 17:19 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> David Kleiner wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > What's your take on the metadata (versions, pkg dependencies, stable vs.
> > -devel, that sort of stuff). As an example, is putting all this into
> > mercury (Hg) an option? I know it's python bu
Sorry about that, Im a bit guilty of using /usr/sfw as shorthand for the consolodation - i'll qualify next time :)On 10/11/06, Darren J Moffat <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:David Kleiner wrote:> Steve,>> What's your take on the metadata (versions, pkg dependencies, stable vs. -devel, that sort of stuf
David Kleiner wrote:
Steve,
What's your take on the metadata (versions, pkg dependencies, stable vs. -devel, that sort of stuff). As an example, is putting all this into mercury (Hg) an option? I know it's python but python is now in /usr/sfw, so it may not be so bad. Or you'd rather keep it a
All of this certainly up for discussion. Ive registered a channel on irc.freenode.net named #opensolaris-ports so we can discuss this outside of the discuss list for now. Over the next couple of days, I'll get a ports list setup on
opensolaris.org.This goes for anyone else who is interested, hop o
Steve,
What's your take on the metadata (versions, pkg dependencies, stable vs.
-devel, that sort of stuff). As an example, is putting all this into mercury
(Hg) an option? I know it's python but python is now in /usr/sfw, so it may not
be so bad. Or you'd rather keep it all in C?
Then ther
Its certainly something to take a look at. I know JDS is being built via
pkgbuild currently.
Thanks for the heads up,
Steve
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
No one specifically mentioned pkgbuild, (http://pkgbuild.sourceforge.net/)
which seems to be making some progress in terms of keeping up-to-date with
software. It has the advantage of building off of rpm spec files, which are
becoming more common in software distributions, support whatever compi
All of your points are quite valid and I have issues with them as well.
But I was thinking something 'similiar' to but not exactly the current Gentoo
portage system.
I was thinking more along the lines of a super charged portage system with
tools written in C or C++ and support for choosing w
Danek,Thats great to hear. What else needs to happen make this project official?SteveOn 10/10/06, Danek Duvall <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:28:19AM -0500, Steve Stallion wrote:
> I most definitely agree - however, I would like to see the project get an> actual start before
Dave,This may be ignorance on my part, but AFAIK, there are no TCL bindings to sun api's. In my experience, more developers (including myself) are more proficient in C than TCL. While TCL is in /usr/sfw, I would like to see the ports system available to any solaris user whether or not they have the
I have. There are a few problems I have found using portage. I'll list them
below:
* Python based (again, would require additional packages not part of the base
install to use)
* USE flags hinder more than help. For example, if you have a global USE set to
include GTK+ support and not QT, then
Frank,I most definitely agree - however, I would like to see the project get an actual start before these discussions commence. To be perfectly honest, Im feeling a little guilty for all the traffic I have caused on the -discuss list the last few days ;)
As a side note: I have already done much of
I think a good start would be to write up an overview of the existing
systems out there, e.g. a list of features and how they compare. Then
have a list of features which the OpenSolaris system should have.
As for pkgsrc, which was mentioned: it did originate in NetBSD, but I
think a number of
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, David Kleiner wrote:
...
What do we need to do to make this an official project?
A project proposal needs to meet the two requirements below, then someone
from the opensolaris.org team (normally me these days) gets together with
the proposer to set up the project space.
1.
Have you taken a look at the Gentoo portage system?
I'm particularly fond of that, but I think with some reworking it would be a
nice fit for
OpenSolaris and the possibility of even building an Open Solaris kernel with
your favorite tool chain.
I think the portage tools could get a boost by be
Thats an excellent point Alan - it sounds like /opt/sfw should probably be left on its own.
This may be a huge stretch, but what would the implications be of
having the consolodation managed and distributed via the ports system?
This is how other free OS's typically handle non core packages (ie:
Steve Stallion wrote:
I completely agree. It does make the dependency list much bigger but
there are a couple of options (at least as I see it):
1) /usr/sfw is moved into the ports collection (eventually of course),
and we all live in a big happy world.
I think there's confusion here, mostl
I completely agree. It does make the dependency list much bigger but there are a couple of options (at least as I see it):1) /usr/sfw is moved into the ports collection (eventually of course), and we all live in a big happy world.
2) We build in alternate dependencies on /usr/sfw package in the ev
"Steven" == Steven Stallion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> This may be ignorance on my part, but AFAIK, there are no TCL
Steven> bindings to sun api's. In my experience, more developers
Steven> (including myself) are more proficient in C than TCL. While
Steven> TCL is in /usr/sfw, I would lik
> Dave,
>
> This may be ignorance on my part, but AFAIK, there are no TCL bindings to
> sun api's. In my experience, more developers (including myself) are more
> proficient in C than TCL. While TCL is in /usr/sfw, I would like to see the
> ports system available to any solaris user whether or not
Dave,This may be ignorance on my part, but AFAIK, there are no
TCL bindings to sun api's. In my experience, more developers (including
myself) are more proficient in C than TCL. While TCL is in /usr/sfw, I
would like to see the ports system available to any solaris user
whether or not they have the
Good summary, thank you.
What do we need to do to make this an official project?
Cheers,
David
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
A couple of responses to queries on the mailing list:
Variant Support
=
Variants are 'options' to building a port. For example, if one wanted to build
apache httpd with mod_ssl support, you would generally notify the ports system
with an option. FreeBSD calls these options KNOBS, and
>>From above:
>
> I would like to propose a solaris ports system loosely based on darwinports
> functionality. There are of course changes I would like to see made: support
> for different compiler sets (gcc vs. sun), support for solaris packages, and
> a shift from TCL to C, and the abillity to r
>From above:
I would like to propose a solaris ports system loosely based on darwinports
functionality. There are of course changes I would like to see made: support
for different compiler sets (gcc vs. sun), support for solaris packages, and a
shift from TCL to C, and the abillity to rely on p
There is FreeBSD ports, darwin ports (Mac OS X) and freshports - which one do
you suggest we try to follow?
Thanx,
/D
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
26 matches
Mail list logo
