tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: building foreign packages with pkgsrc

On 2019-06-22 10:02, Brook Milligan wrote:
On Jun 22, 2019, at 8:05 AM, Ottavio Caruso <> wrote:

I don't know about FreeBSD, but, as long as Linux is concerned, the
problem would be that the resulting packages would be installed in the
same binary prefix as the native distro (/bin:/sbin:/usb/bin, etc),
negating pkgsrc's intrinsic advantage of separating base system from
additional packages. But maybe I didn't get the point of this project,
in which case I apologize.
I am thinking about ways to encourage people to use pkgsrc more widely so that, for example, a broader group of people would be invested in contributing packages to pkgsrc.  As one example, if pkgsrc could make Linux packages then it might be worthwhile for a Linux developer to contribute to pkgsrc, especially because s/he gets users of other systems for free and therefore a wider user base.

In this case, it doesn't really matter where the packages get installed as long as they are in the "normal place" on each system.  We may well disagree with the organization, but that is not the point.  The point is to encourage the following development pipeline:

developer -> new package -> pkgsrc -> (binary) package for ... (NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, MacOS, ...)

instead of what is happening, which is the following:

NetBSD developer -> new package -> pkgsrc -> (binary) package for NetBSD
FreeBSD developer -> new package -> ports -> (binary) package for FreeBSD
Linux developer -> new package -> RPM -> binary package for Linux

(Incidentally and perhaps unrelated, but I think a big breakthrough
for pkgsrc on Linux would be to find a mechanism to build and create
packages that could work seamlessly on heterogeneous environments such
as the gazillion different distros. )
I think you are suggesting a single _binary_ package that would work on all distros?

In some sense that would not be needed if pkgsrc can make a bunch of different binary package types.  In fact, if pkgsrc can do that, then it might encourage the distros to cooperate and coordinate packaging systems or internal formats or something.

I don't think this is a reasonable first step for pkgsrc, though.  The other systems have what they have for whatever reason.  We will get nowhere trying to change that.  However, we can get somewhere by being able to create those package files.

Maybe there is more to your thoughts, though.


What would be the advantage of providing non-pkgsrc package formats?

Would it not suffice to provide standard binary pkgsrc packages for Linux, as I've been doing for quarterly snapshots on CentOS?

It would be helpful, of course, to provide packages for current as well.?? I've been tinkering with this as well, but it's a bit more involved to keep them up-to-date.


?????? JB

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index