[indiana-discuss] Better update and product/software installation control

[Martin Man]

Roger Marquis wrote:
> Maintaining a port is so much easier than maintaining an RPM. I'm
> talking night and day. With ports you don't have to generate a
> distinct specfile

RPM specfile and dpkg/rules is the same and very simple for all decent 
upstream packages that behave well (that pass ./configure && make distcheck)

> or build a separate binary package for every OS
> version (multiplied by) every architecture

autobuilders do, not you..., you only watch them FTBFS (wikipedia for 
more info)

> All you need is the
> makefile and a few patches. When a new release comes out most of
> the time all you need change is the makefile's version numbers
> (assuming patches still apply cleanly, and most of the time they
> do).

same applies for RPM and dpkg (and probably others), port's Makefile is 
nothing more/less than debian/rules

> Another big advantage to BSD-style ports is that you don't have to
> compile-in every dependency a package user is likely to use. These
> can all be resolved, by command line or menu, at install-time.

which also lowers the barrier to entry because I will probably not 
educate my grandma how to use make in order to get pidgin working

> The result is 1) a significantly smaller number of installed
> packages with the same functionality, 2) up to date versions of
> all software and all dependencies, and 3) a far more stable and
> secure environment.

for those who care enough to go through all the hassle
(see also Ubuntu: Applications: Add/Remove)

> None of this need have any impact on the end-user experience. The
> same management tools can work with either source or binary (for
> proprietary software) packages. As far as front-end models, my
> vote goes to aptitude/synaptic though yum/yumex is almost as good.
> 
> Even with Sun's proven ability to provide support (SunSolve), and
> superior kernel architecture (mach)

There is 0.0% of mach in SunOS AFAIK


HTH,
Martin