From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11680 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 10:20:04 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 10:20:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 16760 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 10:19:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 5638 Received: (qmail 16745 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 10:19:51 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:19:50 +0100 From: Phil Pennock To: zsh-users@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Proposed changes to _bsd_pkg -- request for comments Message-ID: <20030103111950.A31382@globnix.org> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-users@sunsite.dk References: <20030102140412.GG2863@gulag.guild.uwa.edu.au> <20030103083927.GB17651@gulag.guild.uwa.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20030103083927.GB17651@gulag.guild.uwa.edu.au>; from j-devenish@users.sourceforge.net on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 04:39:27PM +0800 X-Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this message, where not explicitly attributed otherwise, are mine and mine alone. Such views do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. On 2003-01-03 at 16:39 +0800, James Devenish wrote: > I am working with OpenBSD but would really > appreciate some feedback from someone using _bsd_pkg under FreeBSD. I can't help with that part, since I've not yet migrated away from compctl bindings ... It's also worth noting that all the *BSDs have online man-pages. > I like the "new" behaviour. Basically, the selection list is much more > readable and can understand packages subdirectories (to help jog one's > memory). So far, the latter is in a 'case' construct for OpenBSD since > I don't know how other BSDs lay out their /usr/ports/packages/*. OpenBSD: /usr/ports/packages/`uname -m`/category/package where "category" is "All" or one of the categories from /usr/ports, in which case the contents are symlinks to the All case. I can't remember how the multi-package situation was resolved, so you might want to look more closely at the layout for something like the teTeX packages. Sorry, the only OpenBSD box which I can currently reach is 2.9 and predates a lot of the rearrangements. Under FreeBSD, packages are strictly optional and are built from the installed files (as opposed to the OpenBSD fake-root install, then package creation, then real install from packages). _If_ /usr/ports/packages has been created, then packages will be created under there; if not, then they'll be created inside the ports directory and you'll have things like /usr/ports/shells/zsh/zsh-4.0.6.tgz. Also, FreeBSD is moving steadily towards bzip2 instead of gzip, so you'll see packages with .tbz2 extensions (or, for a short while, there were .tbz extensions, still for bzip2). Which will be created, .tbz2 or .tgz, depends simply upon how old your ports infrastructure makefiles are. My workstation has both, simply because I keep my ports tree updated, including /usr/ports/Mk/. FreeBSD skips the `uname -m` directory level, but is otherwise the same. If memory serves, FreeBSD doesn't have multi-packages, so that issue doesn't arise. Nor does FreeBSD have flavored packages; the package built will have one name, no matter which $USE_* variables were passed to the make system. > # OpenBSD compatability for pkg_delete, pkg_info, pkg_create options. OpenBSD's pkg_info rocks, simply because it doesn't need the version number of a package if there's one version installed. "pkg_info -L zsh" is so convenient. -Phil (the person to blame if you dislike OpenBSD's not including zftp unless you explicitly pick that flavo(u)r of zsh.) -- "We've got a patent on the conquering of a country through the use of force. We believe in world peace through extortionate license fees." -- Andy Forster