Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 02:08:34 +0100 From: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Eric Melville <eric@FreeBSD.org>, binup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: design issues Message-ID: <20011015020834.Y31066@tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20011014180507.D2654@windriver.com>; from murray@FreeBSD.org on Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 06:05:07PM -0700 References: <20011014170515.B39749@FreeBSD.org> <20011014180507.D2654@windriver.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 06:05:07PM -0700, Murray Stokely wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 05:05:15PM -0700, Eric Melville wrote: > > This weekend I sat down to work on some code for the binary updater, but I > > didn't really get anything done because I thought that a few important > > decisions where yet to be made, and really affect what I'm going to be > > working on next. > > I don't think that the situation is any different than when this > project started. > > > 1. I've heard speculation of an entirely new package framework, that would > > It's been talked about plenty of times. Jordan wrote a several page > outline about what he wanted in a next generation package system > at least 18 months ago. I'm personally a big fan of incremental > change, and I would like to see the base system broken up using our > current package framework for 5.0. Our current package framework is inadequate. It needs to be reconstructed with a middle layer API to separate the underlying database representation from the package tools. Unfortuately the open-packages people don't appear to have realised this. :(. Joe [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjvKNxEACgkQXVIcjOaxUBb2twCfQusNBzMCZnAsrWLdR/mihM3q PoUAoK2wcR7EBPf4QQhm5q60N+e4QNhW =I86d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011015020834.Y31066>