[pacman-dev] Problems with frugalware splitname changes

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Mon Oct 9 10:29:16 EDT 2006

On 10/9/06, Cameron Daniel <me at camdaniel.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:11:12 +0200
> Christian Hamar <krics at gds.hu> wrote:
> > Now the main idea was create some "schema"-based stuff, where we store
> > all values for each distributions. Like how pkg filename will look,
> > whats the cachedir, whats  the pkgext, etc.. And then we can do a
> > --with-distro=archlinux --with-distro=frugalware or
> > --with-distro=anything...
> >
> > And all specific distro changes contained by one file like:
> > distros/archlinux.h distros/frugalware.h etc.
> I like this idea, sounds easy to maintain and would be logical if
> everyone still plans on reaching an agreement to bring the pacman3 CVS
> up-to-date with the work the Fw guys have done.

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?

A lot of projects do the whole #ifdef SOLARIS type code differences,
but I can honestly say I've never in my life seen something like
#ifdef REDHAT and #ifdef DEBIAN.  I think that says something.

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.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list