Re: apt based package dist for guile?

[Nic]

address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:

> address@hidden wrote: 
> > The one tempting thing about CPAN (and apt, here's where they meet) 
> > is the simple, unified build/install process -- either 'apt-get install 
> > foo' 
> > or CPAN's 'download / perl Makefile.PL / make / make install' process. 
>  
> Perl's MakeMaker means that the build system for a Perl module is the 
> same as that of other Perl modules, but it's gratuitously different 
> from that of all other packages.  There's no reason that a package's 
> build system should be based on the fact that it happens to be an 
> extension of a particular scripting language.  It's better to stick 
> with an existing build system that people already know (e.g., 
> autoconf, or whatever you would normally use for anything else).  It 
> makes sense to put together some rules (m4 macros for autoconf, or 
> whatever) that can be reused for all modules for a particular 
> scripting language, but there's no reason to stick the installing user 
> with a different interface. 

Are you saying people don't understand apt/rpm/etc...?

The thing that I was advocating about APT was the command line access
to a directory of "packages". A common directory for tarballs would
be a first step forward because we could write some nice tools to
front end it.


-- 
Nic Ferrier
http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk