Re: A bit of code and a bunch of thoughts.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 06:29:06AM +0400, Wartan Hachaturow wrote:
> But! Definately (and most BSD users would agree with me),
> these OSes have a _very_,_very_,_very_ inconvinient way
> of managing packages (that has been formed since the time
> sysadmins compiled everything on their machines, which is
> the right way, but not for end-users :), and the presense
> of the apt and dpkg on these platforms, with the bunch of
> prepackaged software would help alot.
This is the only point I disagree with you on. Ports/packages
(aka pkgsource) works really, really well. I've used both
apt/dpkg and ports/packages in depth, and they're very similar
in functionality. And when you compare the time it takes
to make a port/package (I've made a few, and maintain several more) and
then update it, and the time it takes to make a deb (I've attempted
to make a few), there's really no comparision. Ports certainly
have something going to the point where what few features (conflict
management, better upgrades) you could possibly desire aren't that
far away.
If your complaint is in having to compile your software,
try pkg_add -r (example: pkg_add -r epic4)
> Openpackages is the similar effort, but as I see, they didn't
> made a big progress yet (if I am wrong, forget it :), while
They've made it pretty far with op-make and now the Mks for the ports,
which is most definetly the most difficult 10%.
> Debian's package management tools have gone a long way.
> So, as a short summary, I see no need in making BSDs
> SysV-compatible, porting glibc, making ext2fs the default
> (crazy idea :), and so on.
> What is needed is a good package management -- and I promise
> you, you'll like BSD in it's current state :)
Package management is already excellent, it just takes a little
getting used to.
> IMPORTANT NOTE: The things that I've written should NOT be
> treated as a propaganda against debian-bsd. If you guys
> would do something, I'll be happy, and would even help you
> within my abilities :)
Of course. It's just that programmer-hours are rare, and nobody
wants to see someone do something crazy (i.e. ext2fs default FS,
porting glibc) that has no advantage over either existing product.
> P.S. By the way, in my mind, this is the first code sent to
> the list, so everybody say "Ho!", and get some beer :)
Ho! I don't drink beer, it's bad karma.
> 3. A bit stuck with pthreads. Wrapper class for errors
> (apt-pkg/contrib/error.cc) has two cases -- if the system supports
> pthreads, thread-safe version is used, if not than non-safe.
> First of all, g++ refused to compile the directive
> #if _POSIX_THREADS == 1
> with syntax error. Very strange. Ok, I've left only
> #if defined(HAS_PTHREADS)
> and that fails, so non-safe version is used.
> The problem is that FreeBSD doesn't have libpthreads, and threaded
> programs are linked against libc_r with the gcc option -pthreads.
> Now configure doesn't find the library, and think that pthreads are
> not supported.
> I'll have a look on how the other freebsd'ers solve it..
Link against c_r (-lc_r) instead of -pthreads; the former
implies _THREAD_SAFE, while the latter does not (hopefully
I didn't get that backwards again) so it is basically a no-op.
(unless _THREAD_SAFE is defined somewhere else)
--
Dan Papasian | ICQ UIN- 1240015
bugg@sometvshow.com | AIM- bugg42
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside
of a dog, it's too hard to read.
--Groucho Marx
Reply to: