> * Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-29 11:39]: >> I'm sure of only one thing, as long as my system does not allow me to: >> >> # apt-get build-deps myprogram >> # apt-get source -b myprogram >> >> I'm locked into the FTBFS madness and I'm slave of whoever produced the >> binary package. > > What is FTBFS? > > Anyway, what I am trying to say in the blog post is that, technically, > I don't see I don't see how we can write a build system right now, > given the many problems with current patching and packaging and, > to corral the various binary producers, I see a unified build system > as an _obstacle_. I'm happy to define the per-package metadata as > much as possible to allow build systems to be built atop the packaging > system. > > - Stephen
At Blastwave we have been building software for five years. It is not perfect and it is not without costs but it works. We have GAR ( GARNOME ) and SVN and Studio 8 and Studio 11 and a few other things. We do all that we can to ensure that the community can build software that is integrated into a stack of libraries and apps where a simple "pkg-get -i foo" results in "foo" being installed, protected away from the OS in a separate filesystem area at /opt/csw. That is Community SoftWare. The user also ends up with all the required dependencies installed and can then update them as required. But we don't *yet* have the ability to allow the user to simply download the sources and then build them on the fly with a local compiler ( GCC or Studio 11/12 etc ). I think we could get there faster ... if you were to share some of your work with regards to a whole new package system and software maintainance system for Project Indiana. There is only so much we community people can do out here and I think we should work together. Closer. Please. Dennis Clarke _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
