Remember NetBSD guys kept saying that pkgsrc is the most portable "package management system" created? Well that's apparently not true.
NetBSD's pkgsrc portability: Nothing but Hot Air
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by endman View PostRemember NetBSD guys kept saying that pkgsrc is the most portable "package management system" created? Well that's apparently not true.
http://michielvwessem.wordpress.com/...24/pkgsrc_bad/
-
-
An article from 2007. How useful. Please, find something that's still relevant.
brosis, do you gave a source? pkgsrc is very easily portable to just about any POSIX system (by virtue of it being reliant upon only base POSIX utilities, and the ease of adding new cases to test for in the scripts).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JX8p View PostAn article from 2007. How useful. Please, find something that's still relevant.
brosis, do you gave a source? pkgsrc is very easily portable to just about any POSIX system (by virtue of it being reliant upon only base POSIX utilities, and the ease of adding new cases to test for in the scripts).
The only non-BSD system that uses pkgsrc is DracoLinux, which is BSD licensed and updated 2012 last (pre GCC-drop). They just wrote the ports for the core utilities to fetch usual Linux userspace and are using BSD dependencies for pkgsrc. This isn't something you call "portable" or "ecosystem-independent". Portage is more flexible and funny enough works with BSD.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by brosis View PostSource.
The only non-BSD system that uses pkgsrc is DracoLinux, which is BSD licensed and updated 2012 last (pre GCC-drop). They just wrote the ports for the core utilities to fetch usual Linux userspace and are using BSD dependencies for pkgsrc. This isn't something you call "portable" or "ecosystem-independent". Portage is more flexible and funny enough works with BSD.
Comment
-
Comment