26 Apr
2006
26 Apr
'06
5:19 p.m.
On 04/26/06 12:48 Johannes Winkelmann wrote: >> - Independently from the features we'd like to push, I'm in >> favour of a rewrite; I suggest either plain C with libtar >> or sh, with portability in mind. > When talking about a rewrite in C, do you mean a full rewrite, or just > pkgadd and symlinks? Mainly about pkadd and symlinks. Also I meant libarchive instead of libtar, sorry for the confusion. > Especially for pkgmk, sh/bash feels more natural. Yes, and that's why I won't ditch a sh-based pkgutils in which all tools are shell scripts. I havent't played with Han's reimplementation yet, it sounds an interesting approach. >> - I'm a bit worried about the metadata proposal: >> - Not sure if leaving free, per-repository attributes can make things >> easier rather than produce confusion / lack of standards > Well, it's not exactly per-repository data (at least not planned to be > that way). There are basically two categories of attributes which are > defined by a port: > - required attributes, like name, version, release and files > - optional attributes like depends > > The thing which makes it different than the previous situation (users > could always adjust pkgadd and recompile if they wanted) is that we > explicitely consider that i.e. uCRUX might use a fork of pkgutils with > different set of attributes, which means that tools depending on > optional attributes might only work there but not on regular CRUX or the > other way around. That's what I mean per-repository (your example CRUX / uCRUX fits well); IMHO it would be great to have a consistent package standard/metadata across all package providers, not because you're going to mix packages, but because additional tools / scripts dealing with packages can be reused independently from the package provider. We had a small example with the use of the dependencies within old contrib ports vs. base+opt; leaving out the fact that in that case we were dealing with ports, the not-so-standard depends line required the opt.dependencies addon. That said, if people would really benefit of more customizable pkgadd, I'm ok with it, I'm just trying to help get it right at 1st try ;) Regards, Simone -- Simone Rota Bergamo, Italy - http://www.varlock.com