Re: Proposed changes to _bsd_pkg -- request for comments

[James Devenish <j-devenish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In message <20030103111950.A31382@xxxxxxxxxxx>
on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:19:50AM +0100, Phil Pennock wrote:
> It's also worth noting that all the *BSDs have online man-pages.

LOL pretty stupid of me to overlook that. I could have looked at the
FreeBSD man pages long ago! Oh well.

> OpenBSD:

No worries, I have machines running OpenBSD (but not {Free,Net}BSD).

> Under FreeBSD, packages are strictly optional and are built from the
> installed files (as opposed to the OpenBSD fake-root install, then
> package creation, then real install from packages).  _If_
> /usr/ports/packages has been created, then packages will be created
> under there; if not, then they'll be created inside the ports directory
> and you'll have things like /usr/ports/shells/zsh/zsh-4.0.6.tgz.

Interesting. Though _bsd_pkg was made for FreeBSD originally, I wonder
if it is still accurate for FreeBSD.

> Also, FreeBSD is moving steadily towards bzip2 instead of gzip, so
> you'll see packages with .tbz2 extensions (or, for a short while, there
> were .tbz extensions, still for bzip2).  Which will be created, .tbz2 or
> .tgz, depends simply upon how old your ports infrastructure makefiles
> are.  My workstation has both, simply because I keep my ports tree
> updated, including /usr/ports/Mk/.

Okay, I introduced a switch statement for filename extensions because it
seemed to be more involved than simply t[gbz]. I should probably dig up
archives of the -workers thread on that topic, to see if there is
anything about what you just mentioned.

> -Phil (the person to blame if you dislike OpenBSD's not including zftp
>        unless you explicitly pick that flavo(u)r of zsh.)

:)