According to Brent Fulgham:
> > Yes, and when the FreeBSD port of dpkg is ready, the
> > Debian packaging tools can be use for everything on
> > the DebianBSD distribution.
> > A lot of work has gone into the FBSD ports suite, and
> > it works flawlessly iff you are aware of a few key points.
> > But it looks like the Debian suite has had even more
> > work. If it is better, that says it all!
> Well, I'm not sure that the dpkg system is better or worse than
> the BSD ports concept. As I've mentioned before, the ports
> method has some real advantages for software that benefits
> from machine-specific compiler options.
> At any rate, a BSD-dpkg would provide BSD users with an easy
> and MAINTAINABLE way of placing Linux binaries on their system,
> and insuring good interoperation between the BSD/Linux sides
> of their OS...
All right; so we could use both suites and let our
users have the flexibility.
By only gripe about the ports suite came into the glare
when I upgraded from FreeBSD 2.2.8 to v3.2 recently.
There a bunch of GNU things that I'd like to install.
The gnome package(s), for one; and more to the point,
The ports method screwed me up (or I screwd up myself,
perhaps) by having some ports and libraries built the
old a.out way, and the rest ELF.
I don't want to spent the hours|days figuring out all
the dependencies and deleting each and rebuilding....
....but that's about the only way.
At least a DebianBSD wouldn't have these problems.
Gary D. Kline firstname.lastname@example.org Public service Unix
- RE: Alive?
- From: Brent Fulgham <email@example.com>