Application Suggestion.Possible Breezy Intergration?

[Magnus Therning]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:30:15AM -0400, Havoc wrote:
>Yes, I've used both checkinstall and paco (And over that, I've tried
>keeping just the makefiles which is equally crude), and I have to say,
>checkinstall is a little crude.Most of the times, the packages don't
>work for me, and even if they do, I find that having my compiled
>packages mixed up with my normal packages, found in a official
>repository a little bit of a mix-up.It's better to have a clean
>computer from the start, and paco does exactly that.Oh, and paco has an
>option to create a package (tar.gz though), that can be installed at a
>later date, using paco.It's really a better and cleaner way to manage
>source-installed programs.Just use it and you'll see.

I can't say I'm too keen on the idea of mixing package formats on one
machine. So, I think I'd go for checkinstall. However, I haven't used it
extensively so it might well have some problems. I just package the
software I need instead, it's easy enough :-)

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                    (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus at therning.org
http://therning.org/magnus

Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish.
Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship
by patent law on written works.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
     -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050916/2bd520f6/attachment-0001.pgp