🚀 go-pugleaf

rsi@lucent.com (Rajappa Iyer)  wrote on 27.01.98 in <xnyg1m9n3kw.fsf@placebo.hr.lucent.com>:

> stephen farrell <sfarrell+usenet@farrell.org> writes:
>
> > rachel@virago.org.au (Rachel Polanskis) writes:
> > > I agree.
> > > I will be severely disappointed if Netscape gets totally
> > > assimilated by the Linux community, given their penchant for
> > > completely reinventing traditional UNIX ways of doing things,
> > > at the expense of portability.
> >
> > I have a lot of gripes with linux but this isn't one of them.  Could
> > you please give an example?  (I have built with almost zero
> > portability problems (well... the "top" programs don't work but what
> > do you want??) kde, gnome, gimp and other new linux programs on
> > my freebsd box).  (in fact I can run the binaries =)
>
> rpm and dpkg.
>
> Both could be implemented better and more portably with make and SVR4
> pkgadd/rm etc. See, for example, FreeBSD's ports mechanism.

I wouldn't know about rpm, but you're wrong on several counts wrt dpkg.

First of all, the only part relevant to make - the building packages part  
- uses ... guess what? Make.

As to pkgadd/rm, well, the less said about these, the better. I'll be glad  
if I never have to use them again.

As to portability - dpkg seems to run on several non-Linux Unices just  
fine, from what I hear. (And in any case, you can unpack every .deb with  
ar, gzip, and tar (in that sequence). But you knew that, didn't you?)

> 'nuff said.


Kai
--
Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/