On 8/18/11 2:59 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:

while all the talk about new ports frameworks etc is nice, it is still annoying that the ports and FreeBSD crews don't take the *new* PBI infrastructure that is being pused out with PCBSD-9 as an important move. The new PBI infrastructure should be taken into the ports system as an important factor. For those who do not know it, it give a facility somewhat like the what that APPLE applications work. At the potential (not always) for having redundant libraries, every PBI package comes with EVERYTHING IT NEEDS. there are no 'dependnet packages' as such. On install a survey is made so that if anything is found to be truly duplicated (different versions of the same library are NOT considered a duplicate) then they share, but if not then each package installs and ONLY USES the stuff that came with it.

The ramifications of this (in this era of large disks) are immense. If you unstall all your main applications using PBI, then if you screw up your ports installed libraries and development environment when you install some new version of the XXX runtime, *your applications keep working*.

A case of "it just works". For the life of me I don't understand WHY

there is this resistance to taking it into the fold. Especially when all the work has already been done. It won't replace pkgng and it it won't replace ports because it actually uses ports to generate the PBI packages. But it should be teh default delivery mechanism for binary basic packages.

As I said.. go run an apple for a while and see what it is supposed to be like.