On 2011-9-13 01:17 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Sep 12, 2011, at 09:34, Anders F Björklund wrote: >> The archives could be extended to packages with a few extra metadata, at >> least there's nothing fundamentally different from the MacPorts "archives" >> and the FreeBSD "packages" in terms of format. But there seems to be little >> reason to keep "supporting" RPM if it is never going to be used directly >> anyway. That goes for both MacPorts and FreeBSD... Stick with them old >> tarballs. > > I don't know why MacPorts contains any rpm code or what it was supposed to be > useful for.
"Why not?" There was a lot of talk back in the OpenDarwin days about Apple adopting a better format than .pkg, and rpm was one of the candidates suggested. See e.g. <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.opendarwin.darwinports/2012>. There was also the whole DPLight thing, <http://web.archive.org/web/20070216155828/http://opendarwin.org/projects/dplight/>. >> Just saying that if you're going to call the archives packages, might as >> well simplify things ? > > Again I think it's only ever not simple when you talk about it. :) It's > already simple for me. I just don't see the distinctions you make between > archives and packages. I'll use either word at random depending on what pops > into my head first. Packages contain all the metadata needed for a package manager (which is much simpler than a ports system) to install them and track dependencies, without needing the system that was used to build the source. Archives don't offer that. Simple. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
