2006/10/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
I said it before, but let me explain the rationale as to why I think this is a bad idea. If we decide to use settings and functions for frugalware and archlinux, how many differences will we solve this way rather that actually talking them out and advancing BOTH distros. i.e. if appending the architecture to the end of a package is really that important, why doesn't arch do it? Rather that ifdeffing crap out, why don't we use that scheme if it's better?
Will we have to wait until the frugalware.h header has 100 functions defined that are completely different from archlinux.h to say "hey maybe this was a poor idea"? pacman is pacman. It shouldn't be dependant on what distro it runs on.
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. When there will be more distros they will try to accomodate Pacman to their needs, thus creating branches and maybe even forks. Having such config possibility as described by Christian Hamar is good. I don't say that there shouldn't be standartization initiative for making Pacman-based distros to have similar package management schema, but having a compile-time option is not a bad idea in case there will be no agreement on some topics. P.S.: English is not my native language so please sorry if what I've written here looks messy. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)