Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD
To: John F. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Zdenek Salvet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/11/1995 20:32:10
John F. Woods wrote:
> > > we will need a filesystem layout to be 'standard' for installed packages.
> > > People who can't use the standard can use symbolic links; the default
> > > should not require this.
> > This pushes the idea of sources packages too.
> > I need to be able to decide where files are installed
> The notion that there should be a standard place for binary packages to get
> installed does not, in any way, preclude anyone from getting the source and
> compiling it themselves. It's a very strange idea, though, that car
> dealerships should all close because somewhere, someone would rather smelt
> and forge the steel for their car themselves.
I don't suggest to ban binary packages, I'm trying to establish convention
to make also source package (at least in the form of pointer to original
source + source patches) when creating binary package.
> I think the right way to view all this is to think of NetBSD as a layered
> product, in which case the sole responsibility of the core group to the
> package group is essentially to keep out of their way, and vice versa :-).
> Because the NetBSD core is, itself, rather bulky, I'd kind of like to see
> it able to be broken down (if someone is going to use NetBSD as a router,
> do they need to install /usr/games?), which argues for a packaging tool that
I think existing division (base10,comp10,etc10,games10,man10,misc10,text10)
> Be Source Only is silly: there's no reason for it; too many people would
> rather just plug something in and use it (and no, an "install" script for
> X11R6 that starts up imake instead of tar is just ridiculous).
See 18 lines back.
-- Zdenek Salvet