On 6/29/05, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > But, as someone that's implemented an entire software deployment system > > based on OpenPKG, I'm heavily biased towards it. Especially since there > > is a rich set of portable packages already available and Solaris is an > > officially supported platform for the OpenPKG project... > > Just wanted to point out that you're talking about the merits of the > OpenPKG system and team, not necessarily their choice to use RPM as the > backend architecture. > > So my instincts (such as they are) tell me that comparing the pros/cons > of the pkgsrc backend architecture with that of the rpm backend > architecture, would effectively result in a tie.
I wish I could agree, but I can't. I've worked with a lot of different source based packaging systems, including Gentoo's, Grimoire (Sorcerer Linux..can't remember exactly), FreeBSD ports and others. RPM is a great system for providing easily rebuildable packages that generate binary packages. Personally, I have yet to find a source package system that supports easy rebuilding of source packages into a binary one using the same naming conventions and package specification files other than RPM. Every other system I've seen tends to seperate the two to a certain extent and makes it a real pain to manage both. I'm not saying that pkgsrc doesn't have that capability as I haven't worked with it. But, RPM is pretty dang convenient from my developer, system administrator and user perspective. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
