[pacman-dev] Problems with frugalware splitname changes

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Mon Oct 9 10:45:48 EDT 2006

2006/10/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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)

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list