[indiana-discuss] what's next?

[Simon Phipps]

On Jun 12, 2007, at 18:13, Jeff Abbott wrote:

> Geoffrey Teale wrote:
>
>> Conary, as used by rPath and Foresight linux is also pretty darn  
>> interesting, and explicitly designed to handle multiple derived  
>> distros.
>
> Conary is very cool, and it's very different from other package and  
> software management solutions.  That difference, however, is a  
> double-edged sword in that it also brings new kinds of complexity  
> with it, and requires most everyone involved learn a new set of  
> tools and concepts.  Not that these costs necessarily outweigh the  
> benefits of Conary -- or any other paradigm-shifting package  
> manager -- but they do need to be considered.

I'm not familiar with Conary. However, I'm aware that the burden of  
preparing packages for multiple package management systems is a big  
burden that consumes a great deal of time.

Would Conary be sufficiently rich to be able to feed automated  
generation of packages for other package management systems, so that  
other distributions using different package management solutions  
could auto-generate packages from the information used by Conary? In  
my naivety it seems to me that the package management system for a  
"reference" distribution ought to have this attribute.

S.