Re: ports and PBIs
Bruce Simpson
>
> Alfred Perlstein , Matt at ix systems Kris (Mr PBI), some
> others and I, felt that these ideas seemed to make some sense
> and so I put them here for comment.
Please do. Someone has to do something about deployment.
For what it's worth, I've tripped over the garden rake on the ground,
that is 'unsatisfied dependency' one too many times in commercial work.
If PBIs can address this, even for FreeBSD's embedded and server use
cases, they will likely be well recieved.
Julian Elischer
though the embedded people would be EXACTLY the people who would NOT
use this new feature.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-curre...@freebsd.org"
Robert Noland
If I understood the PBI construct correctly... How is this really that
different than just producing static binaries? I mean, as I understood
it, your bundling the binary and all of it's required libraries into a
private directory tree and then playing linker games.
robert.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-curre...@freebsd.org"
--
Robert Noland <rno...@FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD
Matthew Seaman
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2010 05:59:34, Robert Noland wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 15:18 +0100, Bruce Simpson wrote:
>> On 04/10/10 02:31, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>>
>>> Alfred Perlstein , Matt at ix systems Kris (Mr PBI), some
>>> others and I, felt that these ideas seemed to make some sense
>>> and so I put them here for comment.
>>
>> Please do. Someone has to do something about deployment.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I've tripped over the garden rake on the ground,
>> that is 'unsatisfied dependency' one too many times in commercial work.
>>
>> If PBIs can address this, even for FreeBSD's embedded and server use
>> cases, they will likely be well recieved.
>
> If I understood the PBI construct correctly... How is this really that
> different than just producing static binaries? I mean, as I understood
> it, your bundling the binary and all of it's required libraries into a
> private directory tree and then playing linker games.
Speaking as a recent MacOS re-convert (I used to be a NeXTie a long,
long time ago...) I do like the convenience of the MacOS .dmg format,
and the idea that FooBar.app is a self-contained directory containing
not only the app binary, but all of the various other necessary bits:
supporting docco, icon images and so forth.
If the idea of PBI is to do the same thing for FreeBSD, then yay! All
for it. But.... (and you knew there would be a but...) there's a big
difference between the MacOS X environment and FreeBSD. In MacOS, the
windowning system (Carbon, Cocoa, all that jazz) is part of the /base/
system. How does that translate into the PBI context? X and (Gnome or
KDE) as super-packages that you can assume are already there?
Similarly, if you're thinking about server-side applications in the same
way -- if I want to install phpmyadmin as a PBI, does that mean I need
to have a dedicated instance of apache+mod_php for each PHP based app I
want to install? Or should there be a common Web App environment basic
to all such packages?
Cheers,
Matthew
- --
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkvBkBAACgkQ8Mjk52CukIy5eQCcCEU1PmaGZXIkd7BfUTV8kfPc
ES0An08UPz5brQWSf9XNeLtomeg8fIDL
=7sQf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----