Re: A proposal for a package management system

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:50:13 +0100
Michael Rasmussen <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Maybe it would be an option to port opkg to IPCop?
>>
>  is actually a doable solution. opkg needs these options to compile
> tested in trunk chroot):
> ./configure --disable-curl --disable-gpg --enable-openssl
>
> --disable-curl: Use wget to download instead of curl. wget is available
> in IPCop.
> --disable-gpg: Don't use gpgme. Disable package signing with gpg. gpgme
> not available in IPCop.
> --enable-openssl: Enable package signing using PKCS7 from openssl.
> openssl is available in IPCop.
>
> License: opkg is released under GPL2+.

Yes package management is for me a priority on next version (not 2.0.x,
probably 2.1)
I would really prefer using a package management that exist and not create a
new one.

opkg is an option I considered last year. I just looked and compiled opkg
and haven't been farest.
OpenWRT use opkg, I don't know who else do.


As we already have libgpg-error and libgcrypt, I don't know if we should not
upgrade gpg for 2.1. That way, we could use opkg gpg option but need to
add -libassuan libksba, pth, gpgme.
Werner Koch is pushing for an upgrade from gnupg-1 to gnupg-2 for debian
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2012-January/026432.html

Gilles


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d