I think that Ubuntu should eventually switch to pacman instead of apt.

[smartboyathome]

I tried to understand how to package very simply using Daniel Holbach's video tutorial, but it just seems like there are too many steps and tools. I wouldn't mind seeing a better system, and I've heard good things about Conary as it relates to how it manages partial installation, dependencies, etc.

What distros use Conary? I would be interested in seeing it.

[ibutho]

What distros use Conary? I would be interested in seeing it.

Rpath and Foresight Linux use Conary.

[smartboyathome]

Rpath and Foresight Linux use Conary.

Cool, thanks. I will be checking it out.

[eldragon]

Does pacman actually make it easier to maintain a complex package like glibc or the kernel or kde that requires large patch systems?

i dont know about glibc, but making a package for the kernel is much more simpler to maintain, everything resides in the PKGBUILD file. you just update the version number there, and it will download the source and apply your patches, or do whatever you wish to do.

How does arch handle package uploads? Does it use a buildd?

as far as ive seen, packages are all grabbed from upstream, and patches are supplied through the AUR database (where you get the initial PKGBUILD, produced by a submitter). this is how i got to build the kernel. got the 2.6.27 from kernel.org, the arch patchset from archlinux.org, and i edited the PKGBUILD to include my patches (only 1).

What kind of support does pacman have for cross compiling?

havent done any, but it supports it from what ive seen.

now. what the OP mixed is the pacman software with the way to create custom packages in arch.
pacman just solves dependencies and upgrades the system. thats it. you can specify manual packages youve created from AUR or yourself. if you ve configured your PKGBUILD file correctly (or someone did), pacman will solve dependencies.

IMO, apt-get and pacman are too different. i think pacman wouldnt work well on a user friendly distro like ubuntu, where users expect initial configuration to be done for them. pacman does NOT do that, (and as ive read in the arch wiki or forum, its a feature).

i found the build system quite powerful in arch, while i cannot say the same of debian's or ubuntu's for that matter. i think what ubuntu should integrate into their resources, is the makepkg filosofy and use the PKGBUILD scripting thingie. but make it make debs instead of tar.gz

[SomeGuyDude]

Arch vs Ubuntu in terms of packages. I'll say this:

I have had to add lots and lots of repos in Ubuntu to get the things I wanted. I have never had to add anything to Arch, just seach the AUR.

[Dharmachakra]

Arch vs Ubuntu in terms of packages. I'll say this:

I have had to add lots and lots of repos in Ubuntu to get the things I wanted. I have never had to add anything to Arch, just seach the AUR.

Wanna upgrade your video driver? Hop over to ABS.

Of course, non-savvy users wouldn't wanna mess around with config files. But honestly, they'll find every package they want in Arch.

I'm biased towards Arch though...

[eldragon]

Wanna upgrade your video driver? Hop over to ABS.

Of course, non-savvy users wouldn't wanna mess around with config files. But honestly, they'll find every package they want in Arch.

I'm biased towards Arch though...

your avatar kind of gives you away

they are so different, they are not worth comparing. im still sad intrepid was such a fluke on my hardware. but it made me try arch. which im actually loving atm, so, there's that

[kk0sse54]

pacman is good but yaourt is even better, of course I also liked the FreeBSD ports system but that's just me

[Polygon]

if it aint broke, dont fix it.

[tiachopvutru]

if it aint broke, dont fix it.

I read somewhere about a response to that phrase being "if it can be improve, then isn't it slightly broken?"