Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:15:05 -0400 From: Antoine Beaupre <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Mike Meyer <mwm-dated-1020103973.b26615@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-libh@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: packaging base Message-ID: <342BD734-57AF-11D6-AE88-0050E4A0BB3F@anarcat.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <15558.62884.852620.270991@guru.mired.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Le Mercredi 24 avril 2002, à 02:12 , Mike Meyer a écrit : > In <0DFF2010-57A8-11D6-AE88-0050E4A0BB3F@anarcat.ath.cx>, Antoine > Beaupre <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> typed: >>>> And libh will meet resistance not only from being a brand new system, >>>> but also at trying to package base, which will break havoc among >>>> developpers. >>> >>> How many developers use sysinstall, vs. rebuilding from source? Those >>> are the only ones who are liable to care. If it's done right, then the >>> new sysinstall should have packages defined by the NO* variables in >>> /etc/defaults/make.conf, and should set the appropriate flags in >>> /etc/make.conf for each part you don't load. >> Please no. Please let's get rid of those variables. Please lets just >> seperate the different parts of the tree clearly and isolate their >> dependencies and let the developper make install where he wants. Using >> variables, we'll end up with hundreds of them. It will be a maintenance >> nightmare. > > Now you're talking about breaking "make buildworld", and that will > generate a lot of resistance. It's not clear what you're proposing > replacing it with, except for some portupgrade-like utility. Yeah.. I guess I just threw this as a thought. Forget it. :) >> installworld is somehow doomed to go in the new scheme, as everything >> will be a package and the line between base and ports will be blurred. >> Everything installed through this procedure will have to be registered >> through the package system. > > Yes, everything needs to be registered. No, installworld doesn't have > to go away. I can see an installworld target that "knows" what > packages are part of the base system, and only installs the ones that > are already installed. That's actually cleaner than using make.conf > variables. Buildworld can use similar tactics. That's a very interesting idea. That's why developping pkgAPI is so important: there will be a transparent way of getting this kind of information. > But that's all *very* vague. A solid proposal is in order. Since > you've apparently done more thinking on this than me, do you have one > in mind? *Nothing*. I've been thinking about this long and large, and I didn't see any clean way of packaging the base system apart using the ports collection which obviously, isn't really a good solution. > This is potentially something I can work on. That's why I'm bugging you with this. ;) I just want you to avoid thinking that libh is some kind of silver bullet that would take care of this. It's not taking care of this. packaging of the base system, once done, will easily be integrated to libh. I suggest you start attacking the problem by making abstraction of the floppy problem. I see it as just a technical quirk. I'd like to see a finer-grained packaging than just one big "bin" though. :) > Libh isn't, as I what little I know of tcl is enough to keep me from > wanting to learn more. libh is more than just tcl. There's a solid C++ API behind all this. > However, something like tcl is required, because part of the new > port/package system is a safe way to encode actions on packages. yeah. TCL or another sandbox thing to allow safe execution of packages. a. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?342BD734-57AF-11D6-AE88-0050E4A0BB3F>