OpenPKG 1.0 Released 222
Ralf S. Engelschall writes: "I'm proundly announcing today the release of OpenPKG 1.0,
the world of cross-platform RPM-based Unix software packaging. A flexible and powerful software packaging
facility, OpenPKG eases installation and administration of Unix software across several
platforms. It primarily targets the Unix platforms FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris, but is
portable across mostly all modern Unix flavors. OpenPKG was created in November 2000 and after
over one year of development it is already a mature technology in production use. It is
available as Open Source and is further maintained by both my development team at
Cable & Wireless Germany and our contributors. For more details visit
openpkg.org and
ftp.openpkg.org."
Congratulations Ralf. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.openssl.org/ [openssl.org]
http://www.modssl.org/ [modssl.org]
To say a few.
He's the guy that wrote mod_rewrite back in the old days. Tough guy.
Re:Sounds neat (Score:2, Informative)
errr, compare citrus to citrus, chum: RPM is to APT as .deb is to (e.g.) gnorpm -- .rpm and .deb are package formats, gnorpm and apt are tools for managing those packages (and IIRC one can now use rpms with apt -- Linux Mandrake?)
APT is a tool for managing DEB packages, it is not a packaging format itself.
don't be spreading misinformation ... makes you look ... well, like someone you wouldn't want to look like.
Re:hmm... (Score:1, Informative)
Doable.
Lets hope that there is sufficient take up to allow proper dependencies to be included and found.
It's too bad (Score:4, Informative)
The other road is to develop a meta-package system which "wraps" the existing native package system. This ensures the two package management systems don't stomp on each other, and allows you to interoperate with the native package management system (Sun's pkgadd, HP's depot, SGI's inst, etc). As many of us know it can get extremely ugly when a package management system starts getting out of sync with what is actually taking place on a filesystem.
To put in a shameless plug (I'm only a customer) for some very cool quasi-commercial effort in this area, we use software packaged by The Written Word [thewrittenword.com]. (yeah, strange name). Their software is of the latter philosophy.
I say quasi-commerical because while they sell distributions packaged on their tools for profit (and provide support and updates for their software by subscription, allowing me to concentrate on my normal duties, not worrying about recompiling this and that when the latest exploit comes out) they are actively involved in open standards-based efforts to develop a true cross-platform open package management system. And by my understanding are committed to switching their system to an open standard once it is standardized and of a sufficient functionality.
Either way, as Debian users know, the important part is not that you pick a good package system. The important part is that you pick a system that is well maintained, so when the next fix for exploit comes out you know that within a short period of time you can run {apt-get,pkg-inst,whatever) and get a working fix installed.
The biggest problem with many of the other package systems out there (Sunfreeware, Red Hat Contrib) is not that the package system is necessarily bad, it's the fact that the people don't maintain the packages. They're either woefully out of date, or compiled with beta snapshots of gcc or libc, have incorrect or missing dependencies, or simply haven't been tested.
The problem with this... (Score:4, Informative)
RPM's source-centric view (where you have to rebuild everything from scratch all the time, making development of the initial distributions extremely time consuming) is also a major problem, because a lot of packages take a long time to compile (we have one that takes several hours on older hardware), and you may be testing fixes, etc. that only affect a single executable in your package.
Anyways, for people that want something a lot more portable and flexible, see my (also free) EPM software at "http://www.easysw.com/epm/". It does native RPM, DPKG, *BSD pkg, System V pkg, IRIX inst, HP-UX swinstall, Tru64 setld, and AIX installp packages, or so-called "portable" install scripts with tar files, all from the same software description/list files. Utilities are provided to automate the building of the list files from already-installed files/directories (the classic RPM BuildRoot stuff) or by intercepting "install" commands, making it very easy to create and/or maintain them.
Re:Time loss (Score:4, Informative)
For the (hopefully) last time: APT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PACKAGING SYSTEM other than requiring the package system to know about dependencies. APT works just fine with RPM, just as it works fine with debs and I see no reason why it couldn't work with OpenPKG.
FreeBSD pkg_add (Score:5, Informative)
pkg_add -r gnupg
for instance and the binary package gets automatically ftped down, unpacked, and the pieces installed to the correct locations. With thousands of FreeBSD ports already set up, why should I or anyone switch to this new system?
Has anyone actually read their documentation? (Score:4, Informative)
Congratulations, ichimunki (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Congratulations Ralf. (Score:3, Informative)
Purchasing a C compiler costs money and bean counters and the like object to anything that adds to the cost of a box. Using GCC, or for that matter, any software that is not supported by a vendor, is usually strictly forbidden.
This policy or a similar type varient, has been the standard at almost ALL of my employers (3 fulltime and 14 contract over the past 22 years). On the other hand, development boxes are usually not quite as vigilantly monitored.
I am not saying this good or bad just passing along some anecdotal evidence that:
if (sys == Unix) {
C compiler == TRUE
}
is no where near as true now as it once was.