| Summary: | Add support for pacman as package_pacman/xy.bbclass | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Runtime] Package Management Issues | Reporter: | Laszlo Papp <lpapp> |
| Component: | package-management-issues | Assignee: | Unassigned <unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | Low | CC: | kergoth, liezhi.yang, net147, richard.purdie, sgw |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | Future | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | Don't know | |
|
Description
Laszlo Papp
2013-07-27 20:01:54 UTC
Hi Laszio, We've already had 3 package managers, rpm, deb and ipk, can you provide more info on why we need the pacman, please ? Simply because certain people pacman over those? It is not about the number of package managers, but choice. Different features, different performance, different reliability etc. It is like asking why do you like orange when we have apple and banana IMHO. I find this interesting (of course, I'm an Arch fan). Worst case it could go in a separate layer. We'd be willing to consider this but it needs someone to step up and do the work. Nobody has done that, if someone ever is interested, I'd suggest a proposal to the architecture list (and an agreement to understand maintenance of it). As also mentioned, this would could be done in a layer too. |