Hi,
we use the QNX packages to manage the components we install on our
customer’s targets.
Still the 6.3, you decided the forget the fs-pkg because of problems with
the cross development.
So there is a big fog about packages still this decision.
On one side, you improve the package management to be used without fs-pkg,
on the other side, you no more supply cl-installer and when we ask some
question about the way to manage packages on 6.3 to match both Win and NTO
qnxinstall, we cannot have an answer because there is no policy about the
future of QNX packages.
For us, packages are really important. whithout them:
What about version/release management?
What about components installation management?
What about components dependencies management?
could you please answer to the following questions:
Why did you improve packager?
Why did you improve qnxinstall to work without fs-pkg?
Why did you port qnxinstall to Windows?
Why did you improve cl-installer and don’t ship it?
Regards,
Alain.
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
Hi,
we use the QNX packages to manage the components we install on our
customer’s targets.
Still the 6.3, you decided the forget the fs-pkg because of problems with
the cross development.
So there is a big fog about packages still this decision.
On one side, you improve the package management to be used without fs-pkg,
on the other side, you no more supply cl-installer and when we ask some
question about the way to manage packages on 6.3 to match both Win and NTO
qnxinstall, we cannot have an answer because there is no policy about the
future of QNX packages.
For us, packages are really important. whithout them:
What about version/release management?
What about components installation management?
What about components dependencies management?
could you please answer to the following questions:
Why did you improve packager?
Why did you improve qnxinstall to work without fs-pkg?
I’m not from QSSL … but here are my 2 cents:
I’m REALLY HAPPY that the fs-pkg isn’t installed by default!!
It was allways the source of big troubles …
A sufficient package management is possible without the fs-pkg.
(see rpm and others …)
Regards
Armin Steinhoff
What are you guys talking about?
Packages are still the best/preferred way to install new software onto
self-hosted Momentics. I only just learnt how to use packager recently
and think it works rather well (with a template).
I work with fs-pkg for 4 years and I NEVER had any trouble with it. I
install/deinstall/update at least 1 package per day!
Anyway from 6.3, there is no need of fs-pkg to use packages.
I don’t see why I should use rpm today after having used packager for 4
years!!!
Alain.
Armin Steinhoff wrote:
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
Hi,
we use the QNX packages to manage the components we install on our
customer’s targets.
Still the 6.3, you decided the forget the fs-pkg because of problems with
the cross development.
So there is a big fog about packages still this decision.
On one side, you improve the package management to be used without fs-pkg,
on the other side, you no more supply cl-installer and when we ask some
question about the way to manage packages on 6.3 to match both Win and NTO
qnxinstall, we cannot have an answer because there is no policy about the
future of QNX packages.
For us, packages are really important. whithout them:
What about version/release management?
What about components installation management?
What about components dependencies management?
could you please answer to the following questions:
Why did you improve packager?
Why did you improve qnxinstall to work without fs-pkg?
I’m not from QSSL … but here are my 2 cents:
I’m REALLY HAPPY that the fs-pkg isn’t installed by default!!
It was allways the source of big troubles …
A sufficient package management is possible without the fs-pkg.
(see rpm and others …)
Regards
Armin Steinhoff
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
I work with fs-pkg for 4 years and I NEVER had any trouble with it.
The trouble starts by lowering the speed of the file system …
I install/deinstall/update at least 1 package per day!
Wow … and what happens if the installation process hangs or crashes ??
Anyway from 6.3, there is no need of fs-pkg to use packages.
And this is one of the bests feature of 6.3 
I don’t see why I should use rpm today after having used packager for 4
years!!!
Why not ? There are also graphical interfaces for rpm …
Regards
Armin Steinhoff
Alain.
Armin Steinhoff wrote:
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
Hi,
we use the QNX packages to manage the components we install on our
customer’s targets.
Still the 6.3, you decided the forget the fs-pkg because of problems with
the cross development.
So there is a big fog about packages still this decision.
On one side, you improve the package management to be used without fs-pkg,
on the other side, you no more supply cl-installer and when we ask some
question about the way to manage packages on 6.3 to match both Win and NTO
qnxinstall, we cannot have an answer because there is no policy about the
future of QNX packages.
For us, packages are really important. whithout them:
What about version/release management?
What about components installation management?
What about components dependencies management?
could you please answer to the following questions:
Why did you improve packager?
Why did you improve qnxinstall to work without fs-pkg?
I’m not from QSSL … but here are my 2 cents:
I’m REALLY HAPPY that the fs-pkg isn’t installed by default!!
It was allways the source of big troubles …
A sufficient package management is possible without the fs-pkg.
(see rpm and others …)
Regards
Armin Steinhoff
\
Armin Steinhoff wrote:
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
I don’t see why I should use rpm today after having used packager for 4
years!!!
Why not ? There are also graphical interfaces for rpm …
And a qpr can be used just like a rpm, fs-pkg is not needed.
Am I missing something here?
Evan Hillas wrote:
Armin Steinhoff wrote:
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
I don’t see why I should use rpm today after having used packager for 4
years!!!
Why not ? There are also graphical interfaces for rpm …
And a qpr can be used just like a rpm, fs-pkg is not needed.
Am I missing something here?
Yes … the initial version of the package manager was based on the
fs-pkg … seems to be changed.
Regards
Armin