On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 10:41 -0400, Jesse Phillips wrote: [ . . . ] > Otherwise I would be for using the native packaging system, but it > isn't easy for the contributor, the maintainer of the server, or the > one building a system that works with all of them.
The problem is that the system administrator wants to use just the OS packaging system to make things easy for them to maintain the system. The user wants to be able to install stuff easily and may not have sufficient permissions to actually use the OS packaging system. Sys admins don't want to have to learn N packages to deal with N languages, the use probably only works in a couple of languages and so doesn't care if they have to learn two different packagin systems so as to get stuff done. This is not an easy issue. I just find the knee-jerk reaction of "we have this new language therefore we must have a brand new (build system| packaging system|shell|implementation of every comms protocol|new user interface library|operating system)" leads to too many distractions from getting stuff done using the good tools that are already available. I still think basing a D packaging system on Git to be the best direction. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
