Re: Compatability with FreeBSD Ports [debian package tools]

[Raphael Marmier <raphael@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:39:05AM +0200, Raphael Marmier wrote:
>
> > While strictly copying MacOSX is not an option, our dream package 
> > management system should allow us to install an application and all its 
> > dependencies in its own directory, possibly with its own config space. 
> > This would be called "standalone" application, maybe.
>
>
> This is what you can do already with pkgsrc or (perhaps to a slightly
> lesser degree) with ports. Just build the "standalone" application and
> its dependencies with a LOCALBASE of /opt/myapp and make a tarball of
> the whole thing.
great, I'll give it a try!

> The reason why this is not used by default for normal system
> distribution is the high amount of redundancy and that not every
> dependency just works out of the box. As soon as a library needs a
> config file itself, you have to break the sandbox and you loose most
> advantages in that case.
I'm not sure I understand. The config would go in the sandbox as well in 
a ./etc directory. Of course, it has the potential of duplicating 
configs as well.

But if you had to learn how to configure package x, you can configure it 
again without to much effort. And you don't have to struggle to make it 
work at the same time for package y and for package z.

> In summary, this concept works best for distributing "shrinkware" like
> Office programs, but is not such a good concept as general package
> system.
You have a point. However, little research has gone into this kind of 
system so its inherent difficulties haven't been tackled. Also, most 
software is written in the mindset of the "big holistic /usr/local", 
maybe adding further complication.

I've just come to think that such a system would fit nicely into the 
DragonflyBSD attitude to "simplify to scale".

I don't beleive that much in vfs voodoo anymore.

best regards to all

Raphaël