i'm an apt convert/user on my SuSE boxes & of course am well aware of Fink, but
had made -- perhaps erroneously -- a quick assumption that to "use" Fink's apt
mgmt tools i had to 'use' Fink's libs, etc. which for numerous reasons i'd
rather not do.
custom fink info files i have to look into ...
i wonder tho what, if any, flexibility/convenience i lose by adopting Fink's
pkg mgmt, as opposed to, say, a file-based svn repository.
as i haven't yet RTFM'd the Fink stuff, am i correct in assuming that to use
Fink-apt (or any other packaging metaphor) i'll HAVE to package and use
descriptive info files? if so, that seems like an additional layer of work on
top of indiv file mgmt, ala svn, cvs, etc.
of course, taking the time to write/manage the info files will help with
dependency mgmt ...
i'm curious, what were the factors (if any) in you choosing to manage packages,
rather than simply check out files/dirs, again ala svn/cvs?
overall -- worth adding to the pot for consideration/comparison ...
thx.
richard
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/macos-x-server/email@hidden
