On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
sqlite if we goes on is BSD-like licensed so it should ne be a problem...
...
That would be great, the json lib I use for testing purpose cjson
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/cjson/)...
Okay, I'll pull both of these
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
Repository format as in ftp server layout or something else?
Eh, format isn't really the word I needed there. I'm not really sure,
I guess the whole repository *system*(?) has areas it can improve?
One of the ideas I've had
Before and during the summer it would have been pretty simple because
I was working on git and hg. At the end of the summer I decided to
move over to p4 until I have at least the entire current pkg system
supported (and then I'll probably move the project back over to a git
repo).
I think
Eh, why didn't this thread spring up before summer of code got under
way (or during the many weeks it was running)?
Concerning the database situation, sqlite would be cool. If we can
ship the sqlite code either with libpkg or with the pkg_install tools,
it's a win (I don't read licenses, someone
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:34:58AM -0700, David Forsythe wrote:
Eh, why didn't this thread spring up before summer of code got under
way (or during the many weeks it was running)?
I was expecting for your reply :)
Sorry I didn't launch this thread before that because I didn't get enough spare
On 2 September 2010 09:34, David Forsythe dfors...@freebsd.org wrote:
Eh, why didn't this thread spring up before summer of code got under
way (or during the many weeks it was running)?
Yes, that would have been beneficial. For what it's worth, I've been
trying to start it without success for
On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:34 AM, David Forsythe wrote:
In the mean time, I'll keep building libpkg too work with the pkg
system in its current state.
Any really viable plan to change the manifest structure
will have to include a means to continue to support the
old structure during the transition
On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:34 AM, David Forsythe wrote:
Separating ports and packages is silly, because they need to coexist.
Like gcooper pointed out, ports should be using the pkg tools to build
and install packages.
I've been impressed with how MacPorts handles this.
If I understand correctly,
On Thu 02 Sep 2010 at 08:56:50 PDT Tim Kientzle wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:34 AM, David Forsythe wrote:
Separating ports and packages is silly, because they need to coexist.
Like gcooper pointed out, ports should be using the pkg tools to build
and install packages.
I've been impressed
Bapt b...@freebsd.org writes:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Julien Laffaye wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
2. XML is a bad idea. Great in theory, wonderful in my browser, but a
bloated plaintext file with a lot of complexity. I
2010/8/30 Anonymous swel...@gmail.com:
Bapt b...@freebsd.org writes:
We can as well use Lua tables to store package database. Their syntax is
close to JSON.
Besides, I think it's better to divorce ports from base so that pkg_*
tools can evolve faster and are not limited to dependencies from
On 30 August 2010 09:27, Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote:
We can as well use Lua tables to store package database. Their syntax is
close to JSON.
Besides, I think it's better to divorce ports from base so that pkg_*
tools can evolve faster and are not limited to dependencies from base.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27:58AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 30 August 2010 09:27, Anonymous swel...@gmail.com wrote:
We can as well use Lua tables to store package database. Their syntax is
close to JSON.
Besides, I think it's better to divorce ports from base so that pkg_*
tools
On 30 August 2010 10:22, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
I have begun that: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Pkg_install2_specs if you
could add ideas and all stuff you have in mind about what has to be
and what could be in pkg_install, I'll cleanup the page after some
time, when all the
I agree having a packaging@ mailing list would help to discuss about
pkg_install stuff.
We need to summarize the ideas of each one, then discuss about it. Only then
we can specified what needs to be done and how (keeping in mind that we need
to keep compatibility at least as a fallback or
On 20/08/2010, Garrett Cooper gcoo...@freebsd.org wrote:
1. SQLite was killed before because of complexity and because it was
needs another package in base that isn't BSD licensed. That's why
And... both ideas are completely wrong. SQLite can be imported as a
single C file + header, which you
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
And... both ideas are completely wrong. SQLite can be imported as a
single C file + header, which you must agree is practically the
optimum, and its license is public domain which is, if anything,
freer than BSDL and
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:09:59PM +0200, Julien Laffaye wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
And... both ideas are completely wrong. SQLite can be imported as a
single C file + header, which you must agree is practically the
optimum, and its
Garrett Cooper yaneurab...@gmail.com writes:
The emphasis that Florent made too was to remove crud in pkg_install
and libpkg and get things down to more of a library form so we could
develop thin wrappers above pkg_install with logical functions (like
apt-get, yum, etc does with fetching,
On Aug 20, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Anonymous wrote:
Garrett Cooper yaneurab...@gmail.com writes:
The emphasis that Florent made too was to remove crud in pkg_install
and libpkg and get things down to more of a library form so we could
develop thin wrappers above pkg_install with logical functions
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Bapt b...@freebsd.org wrote:
Hi,
Now that GSoC is over a lot of good work has been done on pkg_install.
I think it would be great to organize the way the on going work on
pkg_install
will be done, for that purpose we need someone to officially manage the
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
On 08/19/2010 12:50, Ivan Voras wrote:
- 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 -
Le Jeu 19 aoû 10 à 23:24:10 +0200, jhell jh...@dataix.net
écrivait :
As well I would also like to see something done about packages that
don't need to be upgraded because they are neither platform or arch
dependent but yet they are upgraded due to being listed as a dependent
of another
On 19/08/2010, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Adding to this I would like to see a central database created for
packages that have been removed like in Slackware Linux. They keep a
file in /var/log/preserved_packages with a flat text format with the
file name looking like:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/08/2010, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Adding to this I would like to see a central database created for
packages that have been removed like in Slackware Linux. They keep a
file in /var/log/preserved_packages
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/08/2010, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Adding to this I would like to see a central database created for
packages that have been removed like in Slackware Linux. They keep a
file in /var/log/preserved_packages
On 08/19/2010 23:08, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:30 PM, jhell wrote:
On 08/19/2010 21:26, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org
wrote:
On 19/08/2010, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Adding to this I would like to see a central
On Aug 19, 2010, at 7:30 PM, jhell wrote:
On 08/19/2010 21:26, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 19/08/2010, jhell jh...@dataix.net wrote:
Adding to this I would like to see a central database created for
packages that have
29 matches
Mail list logo
