Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 03:38, Max Horn wrote:

> > * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
> > carefully designed, I think.

I vote NO. There are excellent reasons for staying with the present
format. IMHO one of the secrets of Fink's spectacular success is just
this extreme simplicity of the format of the info files. If you
complicate this, like with XML where you need special tools for editing,
or with rpm which is much more complex, you will loose many of the
package contributors. I don't mean you shouldn't add (carefully
selected) additional features, but please keep the simple human readable
and writable text format.
> If you're going to switch, I think that rpm is the clear choice.  It
> provides shlib dependencies, pgp/gpg signatures, sub packages...  It
> would probably be to Fink's benefit to replace .info files entirely with
> native package descriptions (in the case of rpm, ".spec" files).  And,
> since apt is available for rpm, you can still use that.

RPM for MacOSX exists, I have had it on this machine since last April.
It was ported by Keisuko Fujii who also brought g77 to MacOSX. It works,
and it has a couple of advantages over Fink's present system. K. Fujii
made several dozens of RPMs that work on OSX 10.1, see

I used to be a fan of RPM, I even ported a couple of RPMs to LinuxPPC
that were missing at one time or other, but I still think it would be
wrong for Fink.

Well, while I was typing this message, Max (as usual) got ahead of me
and listed sufficient reasons for not going the RPM way.  


Fink-devel mailing list

Reply via email to