Re: Package management

[Nicola Pero]

>     >> Of course, if there is a solution for package management, we
>     >> should reuse it.  In adition we have to move further.
> 
>     UK> <http://fink.sf.net>
> 
> So, I think it'd be a real mistake for GNUstep to try to build another
> package manager. AFAIK, most GNUstep installations run on top of Linux
> or free *BSD systems, which all have their own package
> systems.
> 
> Layering another package manager on top of these distributions' very
> mature systems would probably not help GNUstep adoption.

That reminds me of perl.  Once upon a time I tried using perl, and I got
into a hell of troubles when perl decided some component was not
up-to-date and started to connect to some perl site and it was insisting
on installing and upgrading perl software (including the perl interpreter
itself!) outside of the standard package manager on the machine, and using
its own package manager (!).  I didn't know, but perl has got its own
package manager, and apparently it's serious about it and it thinks that
messing up my machine installing and changing things in /usr but outside
(and despite/in conflict with) my normal package manager is a good thing.

Why would I want to learn about a new package manager which only works for
perl packages and which totally conflicts and interferes with the standard
package manager on the machine I don't know (it might have some reason to
exist on Windows where otherwise there is no package manager, but on a
normal linux machine it just sucks).

So I personally don't think this is a good idea for GNUstep either. :-)