Just to tie this up: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:09:14 +0200 Joerg Sonnenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could separate configuration and installation phase like Debian > does, but that would shift only the problem. What you call "only shifting" I call "seperation of concerns," I suppose. > > But do you have any *existing* examples? > > Firefox. It builds the "registry" on the target system as part of the > install script. It's not 100% required, Then it's not a very good example. > Well, there's nothing wrong with using pkgsrc on Linux, so it is not > that hypothecial. The question is what is easier to maintain and > verify -- the scripts which are actually going to be run or a large > list of classes which cover all absurd cases. The number of classes would always be smaller than the number of individual scripts, so it would inevitably be easier to maintain. > > > I don't see what is messy and insecure here. > > > > @cwd, @exec, @unexec. > > @cwd is mostly used to save space, in pkgsrc everything goes under > /usr/pkg by default anyway. Situation can be a bit different for > pkgviews. BTW, this should normally (if not always) be automatically > created by pkg_create. For exec and unexec, well, they are used e.g. > to register texinfo pages and the like. They could be replaced by > proper mechanisms, I think OpenBSD did a lot in that regard lately. By saying that they could be replaced by proper mechanisms, you imply that you do not consider them proper either - so we agree, despite your prior evasiveness. > > Setting everything else up correctly *is not best viewed as just a > > matter of scripting a bunch of commands*. > > How should it be viewed instead? As constraints on the organization of resources. > > Although I'm no fan of the buzzword, the ideal one would be > > "domain-specific" and almost certainly not invented yet. > > So you suggest switching to different language, invest the time to > maintain it, fix the bug, learn the language. Sorry, I don't buy that. No, I do not suggest that. As I said in my last message, I am not saying "don't use pkgsrc". By all means, use pkgsrc, if it is better than ports. What I _am_ saying is that there _are_ flaws in pkgsrc, and that we should not be afraid of admitting that and talking about them. The reaction I have seen from pkgsrc's advocates so far has not been very graceful in that respect, however, and in that I am disappointed. -Chris
