> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 08:36:53PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
 >>  >> Finally, what do you think about platforms like NetBSD/FreeBSD + GNU-libc
 >>  >> (promoted by Debian) or OpenSolaris + APT with GNU user tools
 >>  >> (http://www.gnusolaris.org)?
 >> 
 >> > The reason is simple: because the systems pkgsrc was first ported to
 >> > where a lot more coherent than the mess Linux is.
 >> Example I show makes the code simpler, smaller and easier to
 >> maintain. ;)

> No, it isn't. It ignores the problems. What makes you believe that
> /bin/tar can be used for pkgsrc, even if it exists? What makes you
> believe that /bin/sh is a good default? Yes, we have platforms where the
> availability of a tool doesn't mean that we want to use it.
I well understand all these problems but you missed !empty check
in tools.common.mk.
Everything set in tools.<platform>.mk is _not_ overriden by
tools.common.mk, i.e. in case you know exactly that xxx is broken on yyy,
set an alternative manually in tools.yyy.mk.
Instead of runtime checks (I agree this task is not so easy to implement)
you can make some additional checks in
/unique/path/to/tools/ready/for/pkgsrc,
this is not a offering, just additional possibility.

 >> > Live would be much easier if we can just ignore them or treat them
 >> > like a special platform.
 >> Sounds strange for me, pkgsrc tends to be as portable as it is
 >> possible. Isn't it?

> If you want to invest the time to detect all the various small tools and
> the capabilities they provide, feel free to do so.
Not capabilities, just a more flexible way to detect the _presence_,
at least for now.

 >> > We don't want to check for every small tool
 >> > whether it is reallly POSIX awk, simply because that is *expensive*.
 >> Not so expensive at bootstrap time at least for presence of utility
 >> and detecting its type/capabilities (BSD, GNU, ln -s etc.).

> Try it. It is not as simple as it seems.
I know, I know. I just read about "NetBSD philosophy"
and now I'm hearing about pkgsrc philosophy "in practice" ;)

 >> > It could perhaps be done during bootstrap, but even then:
 >> > requirements sometimes change, e.g. because a new tool is imported.
 >> Everything is easy. After upgrading base system, sysadmin (or pkgsrc
 >> user) should upgrade configuring Makefile just like
 >> autoconf+configure.

> Wake up, reality doesn't work that way! (This is not meant as insult
> :-))
Do we really understand each other?

-- 
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.