Jordan Hubbard On Next-Generation Packaging

GlobalEcho writes: "Developers associated with Darwin are beginning to think about package management and source building. At issue is whether something like dpkg, RPM or *BSD's ports could suffice, or whether they are all just way too mid-90's. Jordan Hubbard himself (now of Apple) weighed in with his opinions (user and passwd 'archives'). Apparently he thinks it is time for something more advanced, and he gives some ideas about what that might look like. Does anyone else have good ideas?"

Comments

The Arusha Project

[hoggy]

Just to trump a project I'm involved in, The Arusha Project has some similar ideas to Jordan.

We use a simple XML file-based (i.e., you can edit everything with vi) object-oriented database. The project isn't just about package management, but we implemented a full multi-platform build-from-source-and-install-sitewide package management tool. It also handles dependencies etc.

If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features

[ChaosMt]

I'm happy that someone so capable is think about this. However, bsd ports and package systems are quite good already - lean and mean. On my OpenBSD box it is quite simple. Either pkg_add ftp://url/package_file or env FLAVORS="option1 option2" make install. Elegant, simple, lightweight and powerful. Yesterday I did a big php build with a BUNCH of dependancies and sub dependancies - and it handled them all beautifully. A round of applause for OpenBSD and the port maintainers, please!

What I would hate to see are any major revisions if it's just gonna add some feature; I would rather see that time spent on developing the ports and packages themselves. Make is a good, simple, foundational and almost always present solution. Adding other languages would be a waste of time IMHO.

Let me condense what I think should be pursued from the ports perspective: documentation and ease of use. One can always make readmes and get mini-descirptions, but that really should be expanded upon, both for beginners and seasoned users who just don't know what that software is about. It would be nice to have some options like, info that would go thought the ports tree and build more verbose information. If those documents are built in a consistant manner (such as xml), then any ol' front end can be built to pull the info on the port and automate building the port and the flavors available. For example, a simple curses interface that will inform you of the dependancies that will need to be built first, estimates the size, and gives you a list of flavors to add into your build. Hit ok and it monitors the progress for you, logs the process and keeps the messages out of sight (from those who get scared easy).

I agree that something should be done to be able to automagically build a package from a port. I think this area would be the best to pursue. Even better, if we bsd types could get a system like checkinstall /installwatch consistantly, not most of the time, but consistantly working on BSD. This project essentially is a wrapper script that records everything make install does. In current form, it gives you the option of building an RPM from that make install. What should be pursued is making this work -well- on bsd, with the option to build a package along with documenting it's dependancies and/or recording the install info into the existing system to that all one has to do to remove what you just built is 'pkg_delete'. THAT would be cool!!

Fink already does much of what Jordan suggests

[voisine]

Check out the fink project

http://fink.sourceforge.net/

600+ OS X ports so far, automatic updates,
database indexing, built on top of dpkg.

Re:Is dpkg THAT bad?

[moof1138]

dpkg is nice, and I have not found it to be as dangerous or as buggy as you, though I have not delved deep in the details. I have been running Debian testing and so far have never managed to do anything awful to it (though maybe I can just count myself lucky). Design aside, it has a fatal flaw which is the licensing. Since it is GPL, Apple has to be cautious about it. While personally I doubt that there really is an issue with infecting the whole system, since NeXT and Apple have both suffered the wrath of the FSF's attacks (FSF sued Next over not releaing ObjC changes to gcc, and Stallmans rants about porting GNU software to A/UX seemed downright hostile) I can see why their lawyers are cautious. Plus Apple has a lot of IP on the line that they really do need to protect, since they could get sued by their shareholders, even if legal did not balk.

BTW - You can actually use dpkg already with Mac OS X by installing fink though it is an external project. It works well, has a fair number of packages. I use it and highly recommend it.