[csw-maintainers] Easify OpenCSW bootstrapping on a server

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

we have come a long way. I just reviewed the descriptions at
   http://www.opencsw.org/get-it/
and this way too complex for a simple task. It should IMHO
better read

* pkg-get: pkgadd -d http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/pkg-get.pkg
   /opt/csw/bin/pkg-get -i <whateveryoulike>
* pkgutil: pkgadd -d http://mirror.opencsw.org/opencsw/pkgutil.pkg
   /opt/csw/bin/pkgutil -i <whateveryoulike>

After reviewing the discussion I really think the argument
of "uglyness" about having two wgets must stand back if it
allows just one line of installation.


Best regards

   -- Dago



PS: This was the initial thread I was referring to:

Am 28.09.2009 um 22:15 schrieb Sebastian Kayser:
> Dagobert Michelsen wrote on 28.09.2009 21:16:
>> Am 28.09.2009 um 21:12 schrieb Sebastian Kayser:
>>> pkgutil was placed straight at the mirror root a while ago to
>>> facilitate
>>> downloading, but it doesn't seem to get updates. The version  
>>> floating
>>> around [1,2] is 1.5, most recent pkgutil is 1.7. Could this please  
>>> be
>>> fixed (and be kept in sync in the future pleeeaase :).
>>>
>>> Furthermore, could pkgutil be made an ARCH=all package, so that
>>> there is
>>> just _one_ direct link that one can point new users to and not a
>>> platform specific one (i know about uname -p, still it just makes
>>> things
>>> more straightforward)?
>>>
>>> I see, the package contains a wget which is platform specific.
>>> Couldn't
>>> we just include two wgets (wget.i386, wget.sparc)? From what i
>>> remember,
>>> that is the same approach Sun uses for its explorer package.
>>
>> This was Peters intent, but Phil argued strongly against having
>> ARCHALL=1
>> packages with arch-specific binaries. See the thread for details:
>>   <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2008-November/000089.html
>>>
>
> Wow, that's a huge discussion. I couldn't resist thinking about our
> motto (while reading):
>
>  "to provide a straightforward, easy-to-use experience for the user"
>
> pkgutil is one out of two possible packages of ours that a user comes
> across first. While i see that there is a need to decide about what
> should be an ARCH=all package, i don't really see the need to make an
> example of pkgutil (considering that one could argue both ways). :/