Re: ANN: Availability of pkg(8)-capable pkgsrc

[John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost>]

On 11/12/2016 20:28, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> If the answer is xml, it must be a pretty stupid question.

Everything has a place.  If your opinion is that XML has no place 
anywhere ever (and I don't see who you can interpret your blanket 
statement any other way) then I really don't need to hear any more.

> I have no idea why the people who wrote it
> couldn't have followed the pkgsrc lead.

A) That implies that the pkgsrc approach is superior.  They don't think 
it is and I don't think it is either.  (and I'd love to meet the user 
that disagrees)

B) It also shows you don't know how and where these are applied nor the 
general division of tasks between pkg(8) and the make framework.  By 
itself lack of knowledge is fine, but why make technical statements in 
that case?

>  It's a pretty dumb beast, especially in the
> matching of patterns.

C) ... as evidenced in the lack of a validator

> If pkg can't handle the way things are done in pkgsrc, then it'll need
> a front-end to be written

Er, no.  At least, not by me.  I already provided a solution that's 
doesn't negatively affect anyone.  The problem has been solved. 
Somebody can fork pkg(8) if they really want to downgrade it and make it 
ingest that freeform input.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus