Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 22:23:10 -0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk>, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.org>, binup@FreeBSD.org, libh@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: current project steps Message-ID: <11770000.1004307790@lobster.originative.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20011028132639.A71003@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> References: <20011020202153.A76835@FreeBSD.org> <20011026135930.03D1637B406@hub.freebsd.org> <20011026165952.D11804@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> <20011026221254.A36515@tao.org.uk> <20011026172027.F11804@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> <20011026223033.A44573@tao.org.uk> <20011027131726.A68253@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org> <20011027210157.D1534@tao.org.uk> <20011028100459.A40262@fump.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de> <361480000.1004271794@lobster.originative.co.uk> <20011028132639.A71003@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Sunday, October 28, 2001 13:26:40 -0500 The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Sun Oct 28, 2001 at 12:23:14PM -0000, Paul Richards wrote: >> >> If libh is an installation tool then it shouldn't be concerned with >> package formats. > > That is the main failed predicate. Libh is not *just* an installation > tool. Trivial installation tools are written within libh because it's > the only place they can be developped, but they are only consumers, and > not part of the library. > > Some part of the library can be used in installation programs, but that > is all. > > Libh is concerned with package formats because FreeBSD package format > needed a rewrite. That is done. My impression though is that this new package format is totally dependent upon the architecture of libh, in that the packages themselves are expected to carry large amounts of intelligence in the form of embedded tcl. All that libh really does is provide a framework for packages to execute their embedded tcl that describes how they should be installed. That's nothing like the design Joe and I have been thinking about. The approach I want to take is to come up with a specification for the API that can then be implemented independently by different coding teams (if there's interest). At the moment, all we have are one-off implementations, no-one has ever written a specification that others can follow if they wish to write their own conforming installation tools. One group may want to write a perl intaller, libh would use tcl, another group might use C etc. The task that needs to be completed successfully with some foresight and planning is the specification of the API, sitting down and designing the API before any code is written will result in a much more complete an well thought out design. > I also feel that a few people here didn't read my answer properly nor > did they really take time to look at what libh was doing. I've followed the development of libh as much as possible, certainly I've kept up to date with the mailing list. To be honest, that hasn't enlightened me a great deal as to what the intended goal of the project is, or what the path to that goal is expected to be. Paul Richards FreeBSD Services Ltd http://www.freebsd-services.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-binup" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11770000.1004307790>