Re: Re: OT Re: Advantage of debs?
jeffsh@erols.com wrote on Tue Dec 21 21:14:38 1999:
>1) .zip files are just dumb archives. .deb files have
>{pre,post}{remove,install} scripts, in addition to having a
>centralized mechanism to deal with configuration files (conffiles)
>that belong to a package that may also be mdified by the sysadmin.
Thats the same way freebsd packages contain configuration files, packing
lists, installation scripts, etc. We weren't talking about dropping that,
but adapting it into zips for compression and file access..
debian files are archives (with ar) and currently freebsd packages
are tarballs.. but the latter may change to zips for reasons that I
don't wan't to get in here, search for it on mailinglists (www.freebsd.org)
if you'd like to know Jordan's thinking on this..
>2) make world - that is exactly the problem with bsd. The whole
>base system is tightly linked together - that's why it is so
>difficult to cleanly upgrade bsd without re-installing from
>scratch. This is where Debian shines - the whole base system is
>broken out into individual packages, which have defined
>rquirements and dependencies, so thay they can be upgraded singly.
It isn't difficult.. perhaps a little time consuming. There _ARE_
binary upgrades but I don't know of anyone who does them.
... If you have a better way, feel free to contribute it. You don't
have to fork the OS if you don't like the update system, more targets
in /usr/src/Makefile never killed anyone ;)
>3) I agree that linux compat is the way to go for userland
>programs. IMO, the whole point of debian/bsd is to create a
>coherent debian system using the bsd kernel _along with_ the base
>bsd system (newfs, fdisk, disklabel, fsck.ufs, various console
>utilities, sysinit scripts, etc) being composed of debian
>packages.
Why debian packages? What is wrong with how it is now?
>HTH
I'm not familar with this TLA.
-Dan (bugg@bugg.strangled.net)
Reply to: