[pacman-dev] bsd port?
m.jedrasik at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 18:54:19 EDT 2007
Tuesday 23 of October 2007 23:47:28 Dan McGee napisał(a):
> On 10/23/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/23/07, Mateusz Jedrasik <m.jedrasik at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've tried it some time ago, didn't get too far as I couldn't sort of
> > > be arsed too much ;-) But now that I see someone else's tried removing
> > > the linuxisms off of pacman's files, I might give it a go, time
> > > permits.
> > See, here's the thing. I know this is true of myself, and I don't
> > speak for Dan. But most of "us" linux users don't really know what IS
> > and IS NOT a "linuxism".
> > So comments like Xavier showed us... "cut the bashism crap" and the
> > like couldn't be more useless.
> > The best thing that can be done is actually pointing out SPECIFIC
> > "linuxisms" so we:
> > a) Know what is and is not a linuxism
> > b) Don't repeat it again
> > c) Can fix the code.
> >From Xavier too so we have context:
> "got pacman to compile on libfetch and libdownload that are in FreeBSD 6.2
> 1. cut out with that damn bashism and linux non-posix crap
> 2. check the makefiles, they're full of bugs
> but all this du -cb and cp -a crap...
> and then the "source" syntax instead of "."
> and there's also chown root.root, which should be root:root, or even better
> I am 100% with Aaron here. Why the hell should we cater to BSD when we
> have not had a single use case out of their corner?
No one ever said you should. And you by all means don't have to - one
particular person and some others have tried, and got somewhere, so why
I SUPPOSE a cooperation wouldn't hurt ofcourse... but then again that's
entirely up to both pacman devs and particular possible future bsd pacman
You could perhaphs be aware that just like there isn't much knowledge of bsd
perhaphs among the arch users/devs, similarly there isn't much or maybe won't
be much knowledge of arch among the bsd users - that, however, doesn't mean
that the cooperation of both could not be fruitful.
Once something works on FreeBSD it's probably reasonably easy to port to say
NetBSD... or OpenBSD... then think of all the millions of architectures that
NetBSD supports.. with pacman.. etc... etc etc etc ;-) Tho they probably
would like a non-gnu package manager- but that's another story. Just pointing
out a possibility that could be taken advantage of.
> I'm doing it more
> out of curiosity, and because I believe it helps weed out bugs we
> don't know of being only mono-platform.
Yeah that's another thing - coding for the pure pleasure of getting better at
it. Just because it works under linux, or because some compilers/etc are
friendlier on the bugs than other, does not mean the code is proper or so.
Hence the suggestions about 'linuxisms' by the user - I wouldn't take his
comments too serious, at least those which don't bring in much particular
info, and hence, I suppose, weren't meant to be serious first off - otherwise
they'd probably bring some info in.
> I don't want to get mad, but if this asshat has a problem wit h the
> code then submit a fucking patch. And how hard is a fucking "alias
Is this asshat a traceable asshat? Do we know how to reach the particular
asshat? Perhaphs the asshat has gotten somewhere with his work... Perhaphs
we(you) and the asshat are doing the same things twice, perhaphs someone's
even doing it better. Perhaphs contacting the asshat might be fruitful;
Perhaphs dropping the asshat suggestion at that might not hurt too much
As regards the source="." afaik, if you build it say from ports, or not in a
chroot or so, wouldn't that hurt the build process? I'm not a
dev/programmer , but that entire alias source sounds and feels icky even to
me.. It's ripped out of context here tho as I haven't looked through the code
much personally, so I'll restrain myself from commenting.
> And now in a nicer tone of voice, I don't plan on killing anything
> bash- its the shell of choice by anything pacman and makepkg do, so
> that is staying. But some of the other concerns could be fixed.
Bash is fine for some, but sh is the more preferred imho nonetheless shell for
Bash is an extra on all the BSD's (afaik). having an extra dep just for
building something kind of sucks, especially if it's an entire shell. I
believe sh is just as good (and should be used). Using bash when the program
runs, well, that's a different story and that too should not be encouraged -
after all pacman is not a bash script. And users in arch use other shells
than bash too.
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev at archlinux.org
Mateusz Jędrasik <m.jedrasik at gmail.com>
tel. +48(79)022-9393, +48(51)69-444-90
More information about the pacman-dev