2006/10/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 10/9/06, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be nice if there were less differences between Arch/Frugalware/<other pacman-based distro> in package management area, but we live in the world which is far from perfect. There _will_ be differences. For example, I doubt that Frugalware will change *.fpm back to *.pkg.tar.gz or eliminate/rename some extensions to PKGBUILDs & makepkg.
Well, as far as this goes - this (in the near future) will be available as a configure flag. I don't actually see the extension naming as a distro specific thing, really. There's been talking about changing the archlinux package extension too.
I didn't know about this until you mentioned this in your previous message. And what were variants? OK, it's not so important and it's off-topic, but I'm very interested. :-)
With this option, we could easilly switch it with a simple compile (not saying we would). Defining constants in this way is fine and all, but changing FEATURES like this is a poor choice. It's not like we're talking about "256 colors" or not, which aren't supported on all displays.
Well, I agree on that. Pacman shoul have the same features regardless of distros. I think there shouldn't be a situationd like these: Arch uses md5, Frugalware uses sha1 (BTW, SHA-512 is even better); Frugalware has extensions to better manage CPAN modules, etc...
At this point in time, especially with one feature like this, which _can_ be resolved, I see no need to start doing this the messy hackish way i'll call "ifdef FRUGALWARE"
Do you still talking about pkgname-pkgver-pkgrel[-arch] naming? Can't -arch suffix be made optional? I mean use arch=(...) in pkgbuilds anyway, but allow distro makers to add -arch suffix to package filenames without worrying abut how pacman will eat that. I agree that having "#ifdef FRUGALWARE" stuff is not nice here. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)