Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

> Alan Horkan wrote:
>
> >Supporting Autopackage wouldn't adversely affect or favour any
> >particularly distribution and it would in fact produce packages widely
> >usable by a whole variety of distributions.  There is no Autopackage based
> >distribution yet (nor is there likely to be).
> >
> >
> Note that autopackage is just another package management system.

Yup

> The only reason that it doesn't favour any particular distro is that no
> one uses it, as opposed to other package management systems.

Yeah, I suppose I should have added a smiley face to that :)

> >I think there is some benefit to having developers in control of their
> >packages because they sure aren't going to want to have to maintain
> >mulitple different RPMs and they would insist on a greater level of
> >compatibility from RPM bases distributions.

> The issue of distribution differences is not related to use of RPM.  If
> you want to integrate well with the underlying OS, you'll probably need
> some distro specific changes.

True but I think developers would be a lot more reticent in making any
changes they could possibly avoid.

> There are issues where distros have used different package naming, which
> would've been nice to avoid, but that is certainly not the only issue.

These things are always more complicated than they look.

> >A Gnome LiveCD full of Autopackages could be very interesting.
> >
> >
> For a live CD, the package management system is not really that
> interesting.  The software is all installed on the system image you boot
> into.

I was thinking you'd try Gnome and then upgrade your computer from the
same LiveCD but I suppose now that i think about it further you would have
to include everthing twice to allow for that.

- Alan H.