Subject: Re: pkgsrc to replace build.sh
To: Matt Fleming <email@example.com>
From: matthew sporleder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2007 10:04:19
On 8/30/07, Matt Fleming <email@example.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> [Just for the record I'm in favour of this general idea]
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:51:22AM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> > Cons:
> > 1) we strongly integrate pkgsrc and netbsd I think that keep them more
> > separate is better for portability and also for netbsd users(because they
> > don't need to use pkgsrc if they want to upgrade their system).
> > 2)What about other supported operating systems mostly Dfbsd,Solaris?
> I'm not sure why netbsd source being strongly integrated with pkgsrc
> would be a problem, I mean, the source is strongly dependent upon
> build.sh code now.
> The idea of being able to install a prebuilt kernel via pkg_add seems
> really cool to me, epsecially if that machine is just tracking security
> criticial updates, etc.
I probably should have been more clear in my original message about
this point. I don't think netbsd's src should be tracked by or tied
to pkgsrc in any way; nor do I feel that someone using pkgsrc should
automatically get the netbsd source tree. I would imagine the
checkout would be to a separate directory. (kind of like pkgsrc/wip,
but probably even less tied-together) I was attempting to make this
point when I talked about keeping the pkgsrc bootstrap separate from
the entire build.sh tools, but I obviously failed on that. :)
And yes, I agree that tracking security updates would be a major
advantage for this type of system.
I also like the idea of non-netbsd pkgsrc targets being able to
download and build arbitrary parts of netbsd. (people seem to like it
-- see gentoo/netbsd and debian/netbsd)