On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:11 +0000, you wrote:

> Sounds great.. What you are describing is basically source and binary
> packages.

Not sure "binary package" is the right term, at least for the first
part of your description (where nothing gets built). The difference
seems more to be having one thing (the bundle) containing all of the
packages, vs. creating individual package files to distribute.  I
would like the bundle approach more because it means one can more
easily recreate the same state on multiple servers; all the package
management happens locally on one system and the final state just gets
pushed out. That's in contrast to manually ensuring that all the
target systems now end up with the right set of packages.

For packages that need to be built I can see that real binary packages
would be useful too (like indeed in the "no build tools on server"
setting), but that sounds like an orthogonal feature (and more complex
to add to the package manager).


Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin
bro-dev mailing list

Reply via email to