Yeah IPS is a complete re engineering from existing Package managers. On the Architecture side it has a lot of features that other Package Formats only added as an after thought.
As to your confusion with perl. That is quite an ugly Hack to have both a 32bit and a 64bit version of perl available. Greetings Till On 12.02.19 01:44, Tim Mooney wrote: > In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] IPS idiom for local packages > with...: > >> On 02/11/19 04:19 PM, Tim Mooney wrote: >>> However, most packages that I would have guessed would be "leaves" are >>> actually required by userland-incorporation or some other incorporation, >>> so they are effectively "required". >> >> depend type=incorporate does not mark a package required, it just sets a >> constraint on what version can be installed. When you're looking at >> what >> packages are actually required, you need to look carefully at the type >> of the depend action, and see what each type actually does in the list >> in the pkg(5) man page. > > Thanks for the clarification, Alan. It's appreciated. > > I think my experience with other package managers, especially RPM, has > actually been a bit of a detriment to learning IPS. Even after using OI > for several years now, I'm still finding surprises with IPS. > > Tim _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
