Google SoC 2008

[Anders F Björklund]

Daniel J. Luke wrote:

>> - Binaries / Packages ("Task 4" in Wiki)
>>
>> Using archives (tgz/tbz/tlz) would probably be easiest to implement,
>> but packages (pkg/deb/rpm) would be the most useful in my opinion.
>
> How would this be different from the dp-light work? (I believe that  
> that was working and several people were using it). So, it seems to  
> me like it will take more than just a working patch to get buy-in  
> as the way forward for Macports.

Just tossing out SoC ideas at this point... (i.e. "I don't know")
Not familiar with the dp-light work either, as I haven't used it.

Just now that users want binary packages rather than source ports.
And those two seem to be the major paths to offering such a thing ?

> Historically, Macports rejected deb/rpm as package formats because  
> we wanted tight integration with Apple's package format (so we  
> could use the installer receipts to check for dependencies, for  
> example). There was even some talk of a new apple package format  
> (apkg) that we would start using.

Both Leopard and RPM5 now supports the XAR format for packages,
even though they do use different "package database" systems.

One planned feature for rpm-5.1 is to have the same .xar file
work as a package both for Installer.app and for RPM.app too...

--anders