2008/6/4 Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Antonio Huete Jimenez > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And how is supposed I can change the prefix for a wide variety of > PKGBUILD > > and still have them useable under Archlinux and others??? > > > > I still say that having separate ABS tree don't have any benefit for > other > > OSes. > > Please try to refrain from top-posting when the quoted email is relevant.
> You are asking for two conflicting things, and confusing two > relatively different issues. > > Are you using BSD as: > 1. A kernel where you want to build the Arch userland around? > 2. An existing operating system where you are going to manage a few > packages with pacman? I was thinking in pacman as a primary package manager for DragonFlyBSD (and possibly other BSD) if the user chooses wants to use as that. For both managing a bunch (or a huge amount) of packages and still being able to compile everything without the need of a separate build machine. BSD will have its own userland as always. > > For situation (1), I can see your point- in this case, maybe the Arch > ABS tree should be relatively usable out of the box. But guess what? > Arch isn't BSD, so just because you change the kernel doesn't mean the > package paths change- part of the Arch mindset is not using /usr/local > by default, etc. so changing paths just because you changed to a BSD > kernel would be unjustified. In BSD base comes with everything (base+kernel) where base are a bunch of programs that shouldn't be overwritten when you install a package with pacman (pacman avoids overwritting but avoids installing too) for fullfilling a dependency. I know that BSD isn't Linux, of course and I understand your will of not using /usr/local as prefix, but what about using anything you want although we don't do it in my way? > > For situation (2), you are dealing with a whole different set of > issues. pacman and makepkg are not pkgsrc replacements, so how could > you expect PKGBUILDs designed for a Linux system and with certain > configure options would work flawlessly on your BSD system? For the > rest of us, this PREFIX option would just make things less KISS and we > wouldn't use it (because it is easier to deal with /usr rather than > $PREFIX). > I agree with you that things should be kept KISS, but sometimes keeping things so KISS just complicate it if you want to do complex things. > > It sounds like I'm ragging and being Mr. Negative here, but you have > to realize this PREFIX thing is *one* small difference in a world of > many between an Arch system and an existing BSD system. > Yup, too many differences but I think we would need to take advantage of all that work done in pacman for being able to compile it under FreeBSD. > -Dan > It may seem that I have arrived here to your list with a will of changing everything with the only intention of adapting ABS/pacman to BSD environments, but that's away from my real intention. I just want to help without having any BSD/Linux wars, nothing more :) > > _______________________________________________ > pacman-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev >
_______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
