Thomas Mueller <mueller6724%bellsouth.net@localhost> writes: > On Sat, 12 December 2010, Sad Clouds wrote: > >>> Is there any interest in having separate maillists for pkgsrc on non >>> NetBSD platforms? > >> Wouldn't this be a distraction? I mean if you have issues with >> pkgsrc, you subscribe to one list, where the relevant people hang out >> and can help you. Why complicate things unnecessary. > > pkgsrc list is not so high-volume as to need separate lists for each > OS that pkgsrc has been ported to. Agreed. There's an issue if people running non-NetBSD feel unwelcome or if volume gets too high, and I don't think we're there. > On the matter of making binaries available for Linux, which Linux? There's the question of not just which Linux but which distribution of GNU/Linux :-) > There are many different package archive formats: .txz, .tgz or .tbz, > .rpm, .deb and perhaps others that I can't think of. Do you > discriminate against Linux distributions that don't use .rpm, .don't > use .deb, etc, or clutter the repository with separate binary packages > for all package formats, even within the same CPU architecture? AFAIK binary pkgsrc packages for GNU/Linux systems (and Mac OS X, and ...) look much like those for NetBSD. With a binary bootstrap kit, the same packages should in theory work on multiple distributions. Instead, my concern would be that different distributions have different libraries and that packages thus get built differently. This is perhaps mitigated by preferring to build libraries from pkgsrc instead of using native libraries. Anyone is free to do builds, put them up, and mention them here (they won't be hosted on NetBSD.org unless from a Developer). Perhaps if making them official becomes the biggest problem we'll then have more clarity on the multiple-variants issues.
Description: PGP signature