On 2006-08-16, Vivek Ayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
There are many tools for that under pkgtools (and it was discussed several times on this very list, too, take a look at the archives). Have you tried, eg. pkgmanager (that said, it's in wip, not pkgtools...)? I just happened to try it tonight, but it doesn't seem to work out (on Linux, not Dfly). Anyway, it's not a reason to give it up... it looks fine. > 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. Well, I'd rather speak about "pacman suite", I don't see the point in the "one tool or two" disctinction. I tried to do source based installations on Frugalware... the source building capabilities adhere to KISS, a bit too much for me. It's convenient for bulk builds, however, doing more fine grained installations tends to become PITA. Anyway, that wasn't a showstopper for me. The showstopper was the fact that they use darcs to manage their ports-tree-alike, and that's tad slow on a repo of that size (in particular if I don't want to care about syncing the repo every day). Csaba
