Joshua Root wrote: >>> 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.
It's get trickier with the FreeBSD-style archives, that do include enough of +METADATA text files to work as both... The MacPorts archives have some of that metadata, but not all of it and still rely on (Tcl) parsing the +PORTFILE. But it's doable, to add the missing part and a pkg(1) ? There was some interest for the GSoC, but no takers... --anders _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
