On 19/08/2010, Julien Laffaye <jlaff...@freebsd.org> wrote: > There are a lot of areas of potential discussions: packing list format, > local database format, ... > In my opinion, trying to be 100% compatible with the actual tools will slow > down the project. I am thinking, for example, about the slave/master modes > which made sense when we used a temporary directory, but less if we want to > extract the files to their final destination via libarchive. > > Then, this specification will need to be approved by portmgr@ so the actual > coding can start!
Like many people in this discussion I have done some work on pkg_* and for what it's worth, here's what I would like changed: - Fully specify and separate package name from its version - metadata should not record "apache-2.2.13" but "apache", "2.2.13" to better support upgrading and dependancies. - Debian-like dependancies - the "suggests" variety, as well as "ranged-dependancies" - package X depends on Y versions W through Z. - A wrapper for all pkg_ tools to use, implemented with libarchive. This wrapper would allow preparation of the whole archive layout in-memory, together with simulating common file system operations like chmod, chown, rmdir, mkdir, rename, unlink, etc. and would as a last step offer to serialize this virtual file system to an archive. - Policy to forbid the lazy-maintainer dances with package names, such as package names depending on config flags used, etc. - this probably needs more thinking through. Essentially, I want to avoid things like what happened to the apr port - names like "apr-ipv6-devrandom-gdbm-db42-1.4.2.9.3.1_1" Of course, this would better be if documented somewhere semi-permanent - in our wiki for example. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"