jfrazer wrote @ Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:58:59 -0500: > The reason I'm not running it right now is lack of good binary packages > and a good package management system. I don't have time to mess around > with source builds which may or may not work. I want an upgrade path > that has a good probability of working, and if it is going to fail I don't > want to find out about it 20 hours later when I'm not around to figure out > what went wrong.
I've not received a complaint from you about the fortunaty packages. > I've never been a fan of linux, but my vote goes for apt/dpkg, which I've > had reasonably good success with. Definitely moreso than ports + > portupgrade (which has hosed my system far too many times). (I like linux very much, it's just the distros that suck.) I also think one can improve the binary package handling. But why you put that as othogonal to ports/pkgsrc is beyond me. All those ppl "wanting" apt/dpkg have failed to show the way to accomplish it. All the ports/pkgsrc have no problem with ports/pkgsrc producing whatever package format you want (dpkg,rpm,plain tar). And why would you not be happy with that ? And please describe how we manage to accomplish apt/dpkg otherwise. (Actually you might just be able to debootstrap and run via Linux compatibility. Have you tried that?) Andy
