Luke Kanies wrote: > > > I've always wondered about this; there must be some sort of > "thinks-like-bsd" gene, afaict, because you either love it or hate it.
It's not genetics, it's experience. > In my experience, it's nearly impossible to write software that > manages *bsd packages; That's interesting. There's a LOT of software here that manages packages on over 200,000 BSD machines. Yes, I wrote that correctly - 200,000. It's all auto-magic, as it has to be, of course. The BSD package is the least of our worries. > I've got support for 25 or so package types in Puppet, and the ports > support is the only one that I can't get to work correctly, nor has > anyone else who's tried. I think the current problem is that it will > try to upgrade when it shouldn't but I don't really remember any more. > I just know that I've wasted weeks of my life trying to get > consistent, desired behaviour from ports, and I couldn't do it.[1] > The specific problem I remember was never being able to get it to > ignore the source ports tree when checking for a new compiled package Huh? RPM. Dear god, I suppose it's consistent because you can just about guarantee that it will work within its limited functionality, and when it get cocked-up it consistently fails. > So, hateful depends on context, and for me, if I can't wrap your > software in my own software, it's hateful. > 1 - If you're convinced I'm just stupid and that it's wicked-easy to > get consistent behaviour, I challenge you to do so. You would make > *many* bsd Puppet users happy. Not stupid, we all have different perspectives and experiences. I have no idea what puppet is.
