cruxports for OpenBSD

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

cruxports for OpenBSD

Han Boetes
Hi,

I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.

Lets dive in deep and take a look at a Pkgfile; the description of
a port:
---------------------------------
# Description: A tool for transfering files with URL syntax
# Maintainer: Han Boetes <[hidden email]>
# URL: http://curl.haxx.se
# Depends:

name=curl
version=7.15.3
release=1
source="http://curl.haxx.se/download/$name-$version.tar.bz2"

build()
{
    cd $name-$version
    ./configure \
        --prefix=/usr/local \
        --with-random=/dev/arandom
    make
    make install DESTDIR=$PKG
}
---------------------------------

As you can see it contains nothing more than the bare minimum
which defines how to build and fake-install a source-code package.

If you can see why this is an advantage to you please read on:


In 2000 Per Liden started CRUX-Linux, a distro based on
simplicity. The idea for the ports system was influenced by BSD
ports, but written in sh and C++, the Pkgfiles which define how a
package should be build are nothing but simple shell-scripts.

Cruxports for OpenBSD is a port/rewrite of the CRUX ports-system
to OpenBSD, and is completely written in sh, except for a simple
parser written in C.

Now I hear you say: "What's wrong with the normal ports?"
Well... wrong is a big word. It's just a matter of personal
preference I think. But let me give you a list of reasons why I
prefer cruxports.

 * Lightweight.
 * Always the latest versions of software, no matter which
   release you use.
 * CRUX ports are much easier to create and maintain since the
   ports are shell-based.
 * Portable, anyone can read and understand a cruxport.
 * Dependencies are optional.
 * It's not trying to be braindead-proof.
 * No checking of md5sum on uninstall of files.
 * Files in /etc are installed, and maintained with a mergemaster
   like application (rejmerge) in a sane and easy way.
 * You can easily share your own ports with others with httpup.
 * Does not conflict with other package-managers.
 * You can build packages from alternative sources like
   binaries or CVS.

my c4o page can be found at:

  http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/c4o/



# Han

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Marc Balmer-2
* Han Boetes wrote:

> I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
> package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
> fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.

this is about the most idiotic wast of time I ever heard of.  what is
wrong with our own package tools, which at least to very dedicated and
bright people work on?

what's next?  hls?  han's own version of ls?  hcat?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Joachim Schipper
In reply to this post by Han Boetes
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:45:23AM +0200, Han Boetes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
> package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
> fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.

> As you can see it contains nothing more than the bare minimum
> which defines how to build and fake-install a source-code package.
>
> If you can see why this is an advantage to you please read on:
>
>
> In 2000 Per Liden started CRUX-Linux, a distro based on
> simplicity. The idea for the ports system was influenced by BSD
> ports, but written in sh and C++, the Pkgfiles which define how a
> package should be build are nothing but simple shell-scripts.
>
> Cruxports for OpenBSD is a port/rewrite of the CRUX ports-system
> to OpenBSD, and is completely written in sh, except for a simple
> parser written in C.
>
> Now I hear you say: "What's wrong with the normal ports?"
> Well... wrong is a big word. It's just a matter of personal
> preference I think. But let me give you a list of reasons why I
> prefer cruxports.
>
>  * Lightweight.

Okay, I'll grant you, that is good. Not that the official pkg_* tools
are especially heavyweight...

>  * Always the latest versions of software, no matter which
>    release you use.
>  * CRUX ports are much easier to create and maintain since the
>    ports are shell-based.
>  * Portable, anyone can read and understand a cruxport.

These are debatable. The first issue is basically no more useful than
trying to build a port on a less recent system than it was written for,
which is quite possible and works more often than not at this time.

The other other two points are basically matters of taste, and I'm not
going to throw out the entire ports tree for a matter of taste.

>  * Dependencies are optional.
>  * It's not trying to be braindead-proof.
>  * No checking of md5sum on uninstall of files.

These are all not quite advantages.

>  * Files in /etc are installed, and maintained with a mergemaster
>    like application (rejmerge) in a sane and easy way.

Okay, that might be useful.

>  * You can easily share your own ports with others with httpup.

This is already possible via several venues.

>  * Does not conflict with other package-managers.
>  * You can build packages from alternative sources like
>    binaries or CVS.

The ports system can be abused to do this, too.

> my c4o page can be found at:
>
>   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software/c4o/

All in all, why? The pkg_* tools work fine, and have several advantages
over what you have now. There might be some value in extending them with
a mergemaster-like application (though quite possibly not), but
otherwise I don't see the point.

                Joachim

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Siju George
In reply to this post by Marc Balmer-2
On 6/17/06, Marc Balmer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Han Boetes wrote:
>
> > I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
> > package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
> > fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.
>
> this is about the most idiotic wast of time I ever heard of.  what is
> wrong with our own package tools,
>

One think I would like to use would be a utility like FreeBSD's
portupgrade ( with upgraded ports tree ofcourse ) to easily upgrade
installed ports. Don't know how easy it would be to make with our
ports system.

The reason being the wish to use the most updated third party software version.

Kind Regards

Siju

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
Siju George wrote:

>
> On 6/17/06, Marc Balmer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > * Han Boetes wrote:
> >
> > > I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
> > > package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
> > > fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.
> >
> > this is about the most idiotic wast of time I ever heard of.  what is
> > wrong with our own package tools,
> >
>
> One think I would like to use would be a utility like FreeBSD's
> portupgrade ( with upgraded ports tree ofcourse ) to easily upgrade
> installed ports. Don't know how easy it would be to make with our
> ports system.
>
> The reason being the wish to use the most updated third party
> software version.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Siju

I'm outa my depth here (flames invited, naturally) but
seems like you'd get better odds mixing stable with current
(and that's the same stuff done by the same people with the
same idea of which end is up)

Further, since everybody is supposed to know that certain stuff
is not even supposed to work when mixed, this actually allows
the OpenBSD developers to invade turf that Linux cannot attempt.
(Something like the first rule of communication is that you have
to be able to talk to your self --- not that easy, actually)

The "most updated software version"
must be synonymous with
the latest bugs.

Which are better, the old familiar bugs you know about
or the new improved bugs nobody's heard of?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Henning Brauer
In reply to this post by Siju George
* Siju George <[hidden email]> [2006-06-17 13:32]:
> One think I would like to use would be a utility like FreeBSD's
> portupgrade ( with upgraded ports tree ofcourse ) to easily upgrade
> installed ports. Don't know how easy it would be to make with our
> ports system.

huh? afaik, that tool is one of the worst hacks ever made.

our pkg_add -u, on the other hand, is so good and safe these days that
I consider putting it into cron (using a server I control for PKG_PATH
tho) on our production servers.

this has nothing to do with the question wether -current ports work on
-stable system. sometimes they do, sometimes they don't our ports
people don't care - because that is not supported.

--
BS Web Services, http://www.bsws.de/
OpenBSD-based Webhosting, Mail Services, Managed Servers, ...
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Siju George
In reply to this post by Tony Aberenthy
On 6/17/06, Tony Abernethy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The "most updated software version"
> must be synonymous with
> the latest bugs.
>
> Which are better, the old familiar bugs you know about
> or the new improved bugs nobody's heard of?
>

Ok Tony take this case.

there is a software called foo

suppose 3.9 installs foo.1.1.1 if you use ports.

now a few security holes are found in foo.1.1.1

So the foo developers release foo.1.1.2

And the foo developers *strongly encourage* everybody running
foo.1.1.1 to upgrade to foo.1.1.2 as soon as possible.

So what is the best wat to do it in the present ports system?

Now,

"The "most updated software version""

was a general statement. What I mentioned above is what I intend to
do. Of course we donot want to have when a new version when it has
more bugs BUT we would love to have an updated version when it is
better that the old one isn't it?
Now finding out if the new version is better or worse than the old one
is my home work *before* I upgrade. Hope I made my question less
ambigious.

I know I shouldn't mix current and stable ports because it is not supported.

All I did was talk of a thing I would like to see to Marc Balmer's question on

"what is wrong with our own package tools,"

I am not even implying that there is something wrong. Possibly i am
missing some knowledge about our package/ports system too

Kind Regards

Siju

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Siju George
In reply to this post by Henning Brauer
Thankyou so much for your response Henning :-)

On 6/17/06, Henning Brauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Siju George <[hidden email]> [2006-06-17 13:32]:
> > One think I would like to use would be a utility like FreeBSD's
> > portupgrade ( with upgraded ports tree ofcourse ) to easily upgrade
> > installed ports. Don't know how easy it would be to make with our
> > ports system.
>
> huh? afaik, that tool is one of the worst hacks ever made.
>

Could you please explain why as time permits you to do so?

> our pkg_add -u, on the other hand, is so good and safe these days that
> I consider putting it into cron (using a server I control for PKG_PATH
> tho) on our production servers.
>

I get it :-) It is wonderful !

Thanks again.

Kind Regards

Siju

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Eric Faurot
In reply to this post by Siju George
On 6/17/06, Siju George <[hidden email]> wrote:

> there is a software called foo
>
> suppose 3.9 installs foo.1.1.1 if you use ports.
>
> now a few security holes are found in foo.1.1.1
>
> So the foo developers release foo.1.1.2
>
> And the foo developers *strongly encourage* everybody running
> foo.1.1.1 to upgrade to foo.1.1.2 as soon as possible.
>
> So what is the best wat to do it in the present ports system?

Well, update to stable: http://openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html

Eric.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Moritz Grimm
In reply to this post by Siju George
Siju George wrote:

> there is a software called foo
>
> suppose 3.9 installs foo.1.1.1 if you use ports.
>
> now a few security holes are found in foo.1.1.1
>
> So the foo developers release foo.1.1.2
>
> And the foo developers *strongly encourage* everybody running
> foo.1.1.1 to upgrade to foo.1.1.2 as soon as possible.
>
> So what is the best wat to do it in the present ports system?

Update your ports tree to its respective -stable version and install
foo-1.1.2 (or foo-1.1.1 + patch ~= foo-1.1.1p0) from there. If it's
among the official packages collection, get
foo-1.1.2.tgz/foo-1.1.1p0.tgz from your favorite FTP mirror's
.../OpenBSD/`uname -r`/packages/`arch`/ directory, since updated
packages are made available there as well. (Just set PKG_PATH and
pkg_add -u.) Though I haven't read it in a while, I am sure the FAQ has
tons of useful things to say about all this.

If, for some reason, there is no security update for foo available, yet,
letting foo's MAINTAINER (or ports@, if necessary) know that you're
actually a concerned foo-user will speed - or at least clear - things up
(all the work is done by regular humans, not robots ;P).

Security updates and fixes make it into -stable, regular updates do not.
Using -stable packages/ports instead of manual or alien updates has the
advantage that these updates are also tested with their respective
OpenBSD release, work with pkg_add -u, have their dependencies properly
registered, can be un-/re-installed, don't conflict, i.e. come with the
whole shebang.


Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Siju George
In reply to this post by Eric Faurot
On 6/17/06, Eric Faurot <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/17/06, Siju George <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > there is a software called foo
> >
> > suppose 3.9 installs foo.1.1.1 if you use ports.
> >
> > now a few security holes are found in foo.1.1.1
> >
> > So the foo developers release foo.1.1.2
> >
> > And the foo developers *strongly encourage* everybody running
> > foo.1.1.1 to upgrade to foo.1.1.2 as soon as possible.
> >
> > So what is the best wat to do it in the present ports system?
>
> Well, update to stable: http://openbsd.org/pkg-stable.html
>

Yes, Thankyou so much.

Kid Regards

Siju

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Siju George
In reply to this post by Siju George
On 6/17/06, Siju George <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thankyou so much for your response Henning :-)
>
> On 6/17/06, Henning Brauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > * Siju George <[hidden email]> [2006-06-17 13:32]:
> > > One think I would like to use would be a utility like FreeBSD's
> > > portupgrade ( with upgraded ports tree ofcourse ) to easily upgrade
> > > installed ports. Don't know how easy it would be to make with our
> > > ports system.
> >
> > huh? afaik, that tool is one of the worst hacks ever made.
> >
>
> Could you please explain why as time permits you to do so?
>
> > our pkg_add -u, on the other hand, is so good and safe these days that
> > I consider putting it into cron (using a server I control for PKG_PATH
> > tho) on our production servers.
> >
>
> I get it :-) It is wonderful !
>

I got some problems with it :-(

it didn't update my packages. Could someone please tell me what I missed out?

# echo $PKG_PATH
ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/
#
# pkg_add -uF mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
Error from ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/:
Unknown command.
Candidates for updating clamav-0.88 -> clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
Ambiguous: clamav-0.88 could be clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
Candidates for updating curl-7.15.1 -> curl-7.15.1 curl-7.15.3
Ambiguous: curl-7.15.1 could be curl-7.15.1 curl-7.15.3
Candidates for updating libnasl-2.2.5p4 -> libnasl-2.2.5p5
Candidates for updating clamav-0.88 -> clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
Ambiguous: clamav-0.88 could be clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
Candidates for updating mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1 ->
mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.3 mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.2
mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.4 mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
Ambiguous: mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1 could be mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.2 mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.3
mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.4
Candidates for updating mysql-client-5.0.18p0 -> mysql-client-5.0.22
mysql-client-5.0.18p0 mysql-client-5.0.21
Ambiguous: mysql-client-5.0.18p0 could be mysql-client-5.0.18p0
mysql-client-5.0.21 mysql-client-5.0.22
Candidates for updating postgresql-client-8.1.3 ->
postgresql-client-8.1.3 postgresql-client-8.1.4
Ambiguous: postgresql-client-8.1.3 could be postgresql-client-8.1.3
postgresql-client-8.1.4
Candidates for updating zoo-2.10.1 -> zoo-2.10.1p0
Looking for updates: complete
Cannot find updates for unarj-2.43 unrar-3.54p0
# Candidates for updating clamav-0.88 -> clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
ksh: Candidates: not found
# Ambiguous: clamav-0.88 could be clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
ksh: Ambiguous:: not found
# pkg_info |grep firefox
mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1 redesign of Mozilla's browser component

Thankyou so much

Kind Regards

Siju

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Lars Hansson
On Saturday 17 June 2006 22:21, Siju George wrote:
> # echo $PKG_PATH
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/
> #
> # pkg_add -uF mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
> Error from ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/:
> Unknown command.

Using pkg_add correctly helps. -F takes a parameter, see the man page for what
parameter you need. i guess "update" is the most commonly used ones so you'd
have:
pkg_add -uF update mozilla-firefox

---
Lars Hansson

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Will Maier
In reply to this post by Siju George
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 07:51:15PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> it didn't update my packages. Could someone please tell me what I missed
> out?

Did you read pkg_add(1)? '-F' requires _keywords_, not package
names, as its option.

> # echo $PKG_PATH
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/
> #
> # pkg_add -uF mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1

pkg_add understands 'mozilla*' as the argument to '-F' here; since
it's not a valid keyword, it tries to update all your packages
(hence the 'Candidates...' stuff). Use '-i' to manually select from
a list of possible candidates to resolve the 'Ambiguous...'
warnings.

> # Candidates for updating clamav-0.88 -> clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
> ksh: Candidates: not found

What are you doing here?

> # Ambiguous: clamav-0.88 could be clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
> ksh: Ambiguous:: not found

And here?

This is all very straightforward and, more importantly, spelled out
very explicitly in pkg_add(1).

Read it.

--

o--------------------------{ Will Maier }--------------------------o
| jabber:..[hidden email] | [hidden email] |
| freenode:..............lt_kije | freenode:........#madlug,#wilug |
*------------------[ BSD Unix: Live Free or Die ]------------------*

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Breen Ouellette
In reply to this post by Marc Balmer-2
Marc Balmer wrote:

> * Han Boetes wrote:
>
>  
>> I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
>> package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
>> fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.
>>    
>
> this is about the most idiotic wast of time I ever heard of.  what is
> wrong with our own package tools, which at least to very dedicated and
> bright people work on?
>
> what's next?  hls?  han's own version of ls?  hcat?
>
>  
Why does it matter? If he wants to do it then no one can stop him. If he
makes something worth while then other people will use it. Deriding
people for going against the status quo is kinda silly considering that
OpenBSD does it quite frequently.

This isn't an argument to the quality of his work as I have not
evaluated it. Just pointing out that he has the right to work on
whatever pleases him, and that your response seems fairly agitated given
that it really has very little impact on your life. Maybe I am missing
something.

Breeno

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Deanna Phillips-2
Breen Ouellette <[hidden email]> writes:

> Marc Balmer wrote:
>> * Han Boetes wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've been working for quite some time now on an alternative
>>> package-manager for OpenBSD, and since things start working rather
>>> fine now I think it's time to let you guys know.
>>>
>>
>> this is about the most idiotic wast of time I ever heard of.  what is
>> wrong with our own package tools, which at least to very dedicated and
>> bright people work on?
>>
>> what's next?  hls?  han's own version of ls?  hcat?
>>
>>
> Why does it matter? If he wants to do it then no one can stop him. If
> he makes something worth while then other people will use it. Deriding
> people for going against the status quo is kinda silly considering
> that OpenBSD does it quite frequently.

As I see it, this is an example of working _against_ a project
instead of with and for it.  A personal NIH syndrome, if you
will.  It's not just some Linux thing he put together that also
works here.  Look at his quote: "package-manger for OpenBSD."
and the hidden subtext: "With -MY- name on it!"

--
deanna at sdf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Mike Erdely
In reply to this post by Siju George
Siju George wrote:

> it didn't update my packages. Could someone please tell me what I missed
> out?
>
> # echo $PKG_PATH
> ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/
> #
> # pkg_add -uF mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
> Error from ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/3.9/packages/i386/:
> Unknown command.
> Candidates for updating clamav-0.88 -> clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2
> Ambiguous: clamav-0.88 could be clamav-0.88 clamav-0.88.2

As others have pointed out, -F requires keywords.
In a case where you have multiple upgrade choices, use "-i" so it will
prompt you which you want to install.

Try: pkg_add -ui mozilla-firefox
This will upgrade Firefox, prompting for any "choices" pkg_add is faced
with.

Or, run: pkg_add -ui
This will upgrade ALL ports, again prompted for decisions when necessary.

As Henning said, pkg_add -u is VERY mature now.  I've upgraded several
OpenBSD 3.8 boxes to 3.9 using upgrade from the CD, pkg_add -ui and
mergemaster.  It's a VERY clean process.  And very easy.

-ME

--
Support OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/orders.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

polarapfel
In reply to this post by Deanna Phillips-2
Hi,

On Saturday, 17. June 2006 18:36, Deanna Phillips wrote:
...
> As I see it, this is an example of working _against_ a project
> instead of with and for it.  A personal NIH syndrome, if you
> will.  It's not just some Linux thing he put together that also
> works here.  Look at his quote: "package-manger for OpenBSD."
> and the hidden subtext: "With -MY- name on it!"

I don't see any harm in what he does. Is he forcing you to use his software?
No. So what's the harm? Why the hostility?

And concerning the hidden subtext: isn't that part of the reason OpenBSD
exists after all? I guess we would be using NetBSD instead then.

I haven't taken a look at his software but in general I welcome any addition
to the choices there already are. What I don't welcome is this hostile
environment on this list. This is not the spirit I'm used to when getting
involved with Open Source projects. It's his freedom to create things, it's
his freedom to announce such stuff here. I can't understand the lack of
respect.

regards,
Tobias W.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Tony Aberenthy
Tobias Weisserth wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday, 17. June 2006 18:36, Deanna Phillips wrote:
> ...
> > As I see it, this is an example of working _against_ a project
> > instead of with and for it.  A personal NIH syndrome, if you
> > will.  It's not just some Linux thing he put together that also
> > works here.  Look at his quote: "package-manger for OpenBSD."
> > and the hidden subtext: "With -MY- name on it!"

Oh yes. Any time. I would love your YOU to have to dance to MY tune.
It's not just the code, it's swallowing everything else (all sorts of
presuppositions, prerequisites, etc) that go into it.
Watch any merger with different corporate cultures.
Eventually one of them will crush the other.
A lot of things are easy to (almost) start. (fold when they hit a hard spot)
There are lots of bright ideas (if somebody else does all the heavy lifting)
I imagine the developers are stretched pretty thin.
Yet another (yacc?) quarter-baked idea (until proven otherwise) just adds
noise.
There is an acceptable rate for such. (Fresh crop of ...)
When that rate is exceeded, somebody reacts.

>
> I don't see any harm in what he does. Is he forcing you to use
> his software?
> No. So what's the harm? Why the hostility?
Errrrrr ... I assure you, this list is NOT hostile.
They haven't kicked me out (yet at least).
I've barely even ever gotten an unkind word.
(And I can and do like to play on the edges)
In fact I'd have to say this list is downright friendly.

>
> And concerning the hidden subtext: isn't that part of the reason OpenBSD
> exists after all? I guess we would be using NetBSD instead then.
I suspect there's a difference (as in essence, raison d'etre, sine qua non
level stuff) between the OpenBSD split and another attept at a package
manager.
Fundamental philosophy difference, and I can make a good argument that
that difference by itself is really difference between ObenBSD and Microsoft
security. (Microsoft security can be accurately measured by five-cent
compromised machines)
>
> I haven't taken a look at his software but in general I welcome
> any addition
> to the choices there already are. What I don't welcome is this hostile
> environment on this list.
I have too many thing I NEED to look at.
More noise is not really an asset.
Choice is good, but.
Anything different has to be better just to break even with being different.
(Sometimes substantially better)
(NIH is actually a survival tactic for those of us who did invent it here)

> This is not the spirit I'm used to when getting
> involved with Open Source projects. It's his freedom to create
> things, it's
> his freedom to announce such stuff here. I can't understand the lack of
> respect.

Funny thing, respect.
Any place it means anything, you have to earn it.
Any place it means anything, you cannot earn it easily.
Me, I'm mostly a noisy windbag, but I DO understand where they are coming
from.

>
> regards,
> Tobias W.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cruxports for OpenBSD

Thorsten Glaser-3
In reply to this post by Marc Balmer-2
Marc Balmer dixit:

>what's next?

The MirPorts Framework already runs on OpenBSD and Mac OSX, in addition
to being the native package source for MirOS BSD. (It also works on In-
terix aka MS Services for Unix 3.5, but that's currently not supported.
It will come when time permits, though.)

bye,
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt

12