Re: what does you think of fink?

[Geiregat Jonas <eniac@xxxxxxxxxx>]

esmith wrote:
> Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>
> > Geiregat Jonas wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there any other presently available pakaging system that is easier
> > > > and more reliable to use than fink?
> > > >
> > > > http://fink.sourceforge.net/
> > >
> > > What about using netbsd's pkgsrc , it's extremly portable ...
> >
> >
> >
> > How is it better than FreeBSD's ports system?  It looks the same to me
> > and it was originally a port of FreeBSD's ports, they renamed it
> > "pkgsrc" because they use "ports" to refer to the different
> > architectures they run on.
> >
> > Rahul
>
>
> The NetBSD pkgsrc system does deserve examination because they have 
> attempted to solve the "multiple version problem". This PDF document, at 
> the url below, explains the pkgviews aspect of pkgsrc:
>
> http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/software/pkgviews.pdf
>
> excerpt from pkgviews.pdf:
> 'One of the main problems faced by users of the various systems is the 
> means by which multiple versions of a package, or packages which 
> "conflict" with each other, can co-exist at the same time.
>     To address that, a new system is proposed to allow any number of 
> different versions of packages to co-exist at any  one time, and the 
> importance of dynamic packing is discussed.'
> end of excerpt
>
> IMHO, pkgsrc looks pretty good. Simply re-using the pkgsrc system would, 
> save a lot of time and work and give DF something to use right now ( I'm 
> getting tired of fixing FreeBSD ports ).
>
> DF could probably even create a more memorable name than 'pkgsrc'.

Why not use pkgsrc from pkgsrc.org , why would we want to start our own 
packaging system derived from pkgsrc ?