Re: [dev] [OFFTOPIC] Recommended meta-build system

On 1 February 2010 09:38, Dmitry Maluka <dmitrymaluka_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:00:58PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
>> There are retarded standards for all kinds of crap, too bad that there
>> are thousands of standards and nobody follows them anyway.
>>
>> It is simple, the system user knows much better where shit is than the
>> developer can dream knowing, if the developer tries to guess he will
>> invariably fuck it up and waste even more of the user's time.
>>
>> If you want pre-chewed software, use whatever packaging system your OS
>> provides and let packagers deal with this, expecting the original
>> software developers to do it is extremely naive.
>
> I think a lot on a concept of an OS-independent package manager destined
> not just to automate software installation but to make software
> development and distribution more consistent. (And to get rid of extra
> layer of software maintainance for each OS.) In this hypothetical
> concept, package is a unit of world-wide software distribution with some
> dependencies, but (sic!) dependencies are not just other packages - they
> are _interfaces_ provided by other packages, by the base system or
> whatever. This is a simple and evident idea based on an assumption that
> any system relies upon well-defined interfaces provided by other
> systems. Those interfaces are documented by humans in systems
> documentation or in well known standards. Unfortunately, this would work
> in an ideal world or at least a good one, not in this one. There are
> some good standards but they are a puny minority.

IMHO such a package manager is not needed, all we need are static
executables of each tool what I try to achieve with static linux. Only
exception are config files for daemons and tools, however this is all
achievable using git or rsync for upgrading.

So there is really no need for a package management system ;)

Cheers,
Anselm
Received on Mon Feb 01 2010 - 09:48:37 UTC