At 8:01 Uhr -0800 16.01.2002, Evan Martin wrote: >On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:10:55AM +0100, Max Horn wrote: >> I think you really should have first informed yourself a bit better >> about fink before posting this! I think it's a bit embarassing to see >> people post to fink-devel who haven't even bothered to read the docs. >> >> We do offere binaries (.deb files), and you indeed can use apt-get and >> dselect. > >I am somewhat familiar with fink; I do use it, after all! :) > >I was referring more to the fact that many packages are not available >through the dselect method.
http://fink.sourceforge.net/doc/packaging/policy.php We don't want to be sued. If a packages doesn't have a license field, it won't get into the bindist. If it is under a restrictive license which forbids binary redistribution, it won't get into the bindist. If a package possibly infringes patents (like libgif does with the unisys patent), it won't get into the binary distro. If a package fails in any other way to comply the policy... you guess. > >For example, when I want to install a package, the process I use is >usually: > - apt-get install packagename > - if package wasn't found > - check the fink page to see if it has a different name than I'm > accustomed to > - fink install packagename > >This last step seems odd-- there are two separate ways to install >packages? Well, you have one valid point (which was discussed before, I think): it might be desirable to add an option to fink that will change the behaviour of "fink install" so that it first tries to use apt-get for installation, and if that fails, it'll offer (or do it automatically) build the package from source. > How can I tell from the fink page whether a package is >installable via apt-get or fink? > >(For example, installing something like "vim" > [ http://fink.sourceforge.net/pdb/package.php/vim ] .) > > >I guess fink is closer to the FreeBSD model, where you have binary >packages to install and you have a ports tree with source to install? I am not acquainted well enough with the ports model to follow your comparision. With fink, for every package there is an .info file (and possibly a .patch file, too). Fink then uses the data from this .info file to retrieve the source tarball(s), expand them, patch them, compile everything, and then package it into a .deb (this is much shortened version of the full process). These .debs then are just like any other .deb, and can be installed (and "fink install <package>" does exactly this, by calling dpkg). apt-get differs in that it only knows how to download a .deb from a set of servers. Fink OTOH builds those from scratch. Afterwards, both sets of .debs (the self made ones, and the downloaded ones) can be used completely equally. In fact, once you have the .deb, "fink install" always will use that .deb instead of recreating it (unless you force it to via "fink rebuild"). > > Fink is a tool to create those packages in a simple&automated >> fashion, simpler than anything that I have seen on debian so far, and >> better to maintain. > >Hm... so is that the reason? "It's better to maintain." >If so, that's a perfectly valid reason. :) That's one of the reasons. It's also easier to write new packages then with debian from my experience. Even new fink users, even ones with little unix experience, can do it. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
