Re: source-based package management

[Claudio Fontana]

--- Luis Araujo <address@hidden> wrote: 

> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >    > Sure, but not all software is packaged
> either.  Anything that is
> >    > useful should be packaged.  
> >
> >    Most of the useful stuff is already packaged.
> >
> > X isn't packaged, GNOME isn't packaged.  Lynx,
> GNUzilla aren't
> > packaged.  We aren't even close to `most' of the
> useful stuff yet that
> > users expect.  Admitably, we can't even package
> GNOME for example due
> > to really buggy pthreads...
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >   
> 
> You can get X (modular now) from different tarballs,
> and Lynx
> from an even single package.
> 
> Though  i didn't say "all" of the programs are
> already packaged, i meant
> that most of the
> necessary stuff to build a system and get a basic
> configuration running
> is already packaged.

I can confirm that a really source-based no-repository
installer can manage most of the system today relying
only on GNU coding standards.

It does on my system, where I run sourceinstall to
install-track-upgrade most packages, modular X too.

Of course sourceinstall is by all means not mature, 
but it stands as a proof of concept.

I would expect something similar, and totally
compatible/trasparent with the main packaging tool, to
be in the GNU system too.

Maybe in some eons binary packages will not be needed
anymore by anyone if CPU, RAM and compiler efficiency
all increase dramatically. This would have great
benefits for free software.

For now, of course, most people will still prefer to
have binary packages instead of building a bunch of
programs or the whole system from source packages.

Claudio




Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com