[Distutils] Packagers (Solaris and HP binary commands)

[M.-A. Lemburg]

"Mark W. Alexander" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> >
> > About the packager base class: if we proceed down this road,
> > then bdist_rpm should be adapted to the new base class as well.
> 
> That's the idea. If the packager base class can be made smart
> enough, a single setup.cfg entry should suffice for distributions
> to make binaries in every possible format.
> 
> Delusions of grandeur aside, I don't think I'm distutils savy
> enough to trust bdist_packager based on my input alone. I'd
> really appreciate some more eyeballs on that class especially.
> Especially Mssrs. Heller and Geller!
> 
> > Other packager which are still unsupported (this should go onto the
> > todo list):
> >
> > * Debian tools
> 
> That's my next one..
> 
> > * FreeBSD tools
> > * non-RedHat RPMs (e.g. as subclasses of bdist_rpm)
> 
> How would those differ? The .spec files and the rpm calls to
> make them should remain unchanged. (FWIW, I've fought rpm on
> Solaris and HP and determined that it wasn't worth the effort.)

What's different is the directory layout and naming conventions
these distributions use, e.g. SuSE uses different file/package names
than RedHat and thus the dependencies may not properly match.

For some Linux distros the installation layout may also be 
different (some use /usr/local others /opt etc. for optional
system add-ons).

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company & Consulting:                           http://www.egenix.com/
Python Pages:                           http://www.lemburg.com/python/