Whatever it may be, I like pacman, bash and all the other shells out there.
Archlinux has many packages in its repository that require patching as well. This shouldn't be a giant hurdle. The thing is it would kind of be neat to write scripts in a different shell. This would also give the archlinux team some feedback. Frugalware, a distro that grew out of a love for pacman and Slackware uses bash scripts, but then again this shouldn't be the only shell to write things into. Pacman is open source, which means it can be rewritten and be licensed under BSD to be renamed to...i dunno...zacman (zsh)....or shacman (sh) or tschacman (tsch) or well you get the idea. This would give the dfly user base a chance to decide whether they prefer pkgsrc or pacman. I've used pkgsrc and I'm not a 100% comfortable with it. It doesn't do updates like pacman. Then again, pacman update is binary repo only and pkgsrc can do source. In archlinux, you would use ABS, so really pkgsrc does the job of two managers. But like it said on the pkgsrc wikipedia article, pkgsrc can be a good secondary package manager considering pacman does get ported to dfly, which I'm 100% willing to help in whatever shell you all want. Vivek
