On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:55:02AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> > Let me try and re-state my point in an unambiguous manner -- if
> > a project is open source, the only format relevant to a distribution
> > maintainer would be source code.  If there is an exception to this
> > rule, I am not aware of it.
> 
>   (It's somewhat generous to call a tautology a rule.)  

Not really.  There are reasons why distribution maintainers prefer
building from source, and that is to ensure quality and also because
each distribution's requirements differ.  We do that with the SFW
consolidation.  The default install prefix of most GNU applications
is /usr/local and we switch that to /usr or /usr/gnu.

>   As has been
>   stated before, pkg(5) does not contain a build system by design--as a
>   result, the practical problem of absorbing components from package
>   publishers using both legacy packages and proto areas has been very
>   straightforward.

True, though I'd suspect a lot of it is because we have been
depending on the standardized build procedures currently used to
build the SVR4 packages.  If we had to build from source all the
packages we distribute currently via pkg.opensolaris.org, the lack
of a standard build system would be felt more acutely.

>   There is no objection to a project spinning up to
>   develop a preferred build system (although I think your very argument
>   about option selection during software builds applies as well to build
>   systems themselves).

You mean being able to pick a build system to use?  That's not what             
I was trying to say.  I do not expect a packaging system to dictate             
how the build system should operate.  It'd be useful if it could                
just record and replay the build steps.  But yeah, that does not
necessarily need to be a part of pkg(5).

>   I know Laca and Petr have been looking at
>   pkgbuild-pkg(5) integration, for example.

That's great!

>   Metadata additions that might make this kind of linkage easier are
>   welcomed.
> 
>   - Stephen
> 
> * Autoconf was invented for portability, not for variant builds.  The
>   latter is a byproduct of the abstractions made for the former.

True, though it is used quite heavily for variant builds nowadays.

Venky.

-- 
One hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to