Packages Not [was Re: ambivalence about fortran (was Re: numpy & non-Apple gcc?)]

[Jeff Johnson]

On Sep 22, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

>> 
> 
> Yep, RPM already has this whole ecosystem covered - SRPMs are their "ports" and the RPMs their packages.  However, I think we can also all agree that the "spec" format for declaring all of this has always been pretty ugly (I don't know what Jeff has in store for RPM's future, but right now we have what we have) and we don't necessarily want to target it without a good reason.  Arguably, we also have a really good build system already, so all of those portions of RPM would be redundant extra code to carry around, in a certain sense, and what we really need are just the package delivery bits so RPM is probably overkill.
> 

Hint: rpm embeds tcl these days, as well as sqlite3. Wiring up port build recipes
should not be impossibly hard, and with embedded sqlite3, there's no need for *.spec templating,
which was alway kinda feeble.

And mongo.rpm5.org infrastructure is currently being stabilized, keys.rpm5.org is already in place.
Apple CDMA is passing some generate/sign/verify tests, but I'm gonna need an ASN.1 layer to convert
OpenPGP -> X.509 in order to use Apple CDMA.

73 de Jeff