On 5/4/10 1:26 AM, Reinhard Haller wrote: > The goal of PBIs as Julian proposed is to simplify the automatic > generation of simple apps. well, it's to make some working apps available, that don't interfere with other working apps. > > To achieve this goal we get another ports management application and > hope it handles also the non trivial tasks of the non simple apps. there is a PBI helper app. but PBIs are actually executables with the installation app built in. > > If the PBIs come with all libraries and resources we get even more > problems with multiple db installations not less. not that's the whole point. The app has it's own linraries HIDDEN within itself. it can not interfere with other apps. (except in a port-number manner) but generally apps for which PBIs are good do not do that sort of thing. I would imagine a base system with useful utilities installed by PBI, (so the keep working) and all the development apps and libraries installed by ports/packages. that way your system keeps working, no matter how you screw up your fancy development setup. > > Are configuration dependencies (exim with or without ldap) addressed > with the PBI format? not usually but if you can make your own... > > I believe we need a more precise way to express the dependencies between > the ports. well there is a GSOC project that hopes to do that. > > Reinhard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"Received on Tue May 04 2010 - 16:41:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC