Re: To All Package Maintainers & Would-be Maintainers.
On 20 Feb 2001, Steve Youngs wrote:
>>I understand your frustration, but that frustration is more
XEmacs's
>>fault than the external package maintainers',
SJ> I would agree. Would it be difficult to switch from handcrafted make
SJ> files with handcrafter Local.rules makefile includes, into, say,
SJ> autoconf?
This would be something I'd definitely support. As for the difficulty
level, I couldn't say. I'm not familiar with autoconf. But if anyone
wants to have a go at autoconfing the packages, I'll help out as best
I can.
If I get bored next weekend, I'll take a stab at it. :-)
SJ> Packages are a can of worms. You need dependencies, and the
longer
SJ> the system are in use, the dependency system gets more and more
SJ> complex.
SJ> Silly Ideas Dept: use .rpm or .deb's? They have sufficiently complex
SJ> dependency systems, and more importantly; OTHER people spend time
SJ> improving the packaging system. It's possible to setup multiple rpm
SJ> databases, and it works even as non-root users.
Not everyone in the world uses Debian or RedCrap. So I think we
either need to stick to tar.gz or come up with our own system. I'm on
the side of the tar.gz.
RPM (and I think also DEB) run on more than linux. They aren't much
different from a tar-ball with some versioning and installation
instructions.
The problem with sticking to tar.gz or coming up with our own system is
that it will require quite some work to match the packaging functionality
one expects in a package handling system. Note that I'm not saying that
switching to RPM won't mean work, but in the long run it might be nice to
use some packaging system.