Correcting subject line..... Done :)
I honestly cannot express myself in very fluently in English. Therefore, you will have to bear with me for a while. Try to rearrange my sentences so that they make some sense. Comments below start with <LC> [snip] >Adding water to a boiling and already full kettle... > Unless you are aware of something specific, all I see here are adults having a conversation and agreeing on having different point of views. Yours is welcomed as well. <LC> :) I'm only aware of a 'almost' religion-like discussion. Of course reading your conversation makes me aware of how little I do know about different several standards and processes exist. So my 'adding water' phrase was meant to be a joke. [snip] >All we will need then is to backup only the ???-conf.lrp files. You are squarely putting pressure on the packaging without having agreed that there is a packaging standard to begin with. At this point in time we have a de facto packaging standard, the tar gziped file with manifest in var/lib/lrpkg/file.list. In theory, there are no sacred cows and this could be revisited as well. <LC> I agree with you that we do have a 'de facto packaging standard' as you pointed out. My point was only: In order to 'simplify' the simple act of packaging, from the user's point of view, we should split what does not need to be backed up from what does! I read almost every day that user X using distro Y backed up root.lrp and destroyed her/his boot floppy! Since that, with my idea, root.lrp would not even appear in the backup script screen, the user would be protected from her/himself! You know, must Windows guys like me are teached from the early beginning to reboot, reboot and reboot whenever something simple as a mouse change occours. That 'teaching' makes us do very wrong things like backup and reboot. Well, now I'm digressing... but I guess that you'll see the picture. As for the rest of your comments, I must leave the discussion as it is :) I will most certainly benefit from this discussion. Things tend to improve when people discuss a lot :) Have a nice weekend! However, this is not my purpose. I want to document the existing standard and its natural consequences on our global LEAF packaging. David is expressing a point of view that can be understood as a puzzle where everything fits neatly in a grand plan. I am expressing a point of view that can be understood as a quilt where the user builds a motif of his choice. The natural consequence of David's point of view is that users and packagers alike must follow a grand plan and it can be argued that this creates a framework in which these people can work. Michael's quest is to obtain an understanding of this grand plan so that his packaging remains correct. The natural consequence of my point of view is that there is no grand plan. Once a user has selected a number of packages which he intends to configure into an "appliance" of some sort, the onus is on the user to solve name space conflicts, if there are any. In this framework, ordinary users decide if Machael's packaging is right for them and he onlly has to deal with common sense in building his packages. I do not see why both point of views cannot coexist. From a strictly mathematical point of view, one is a subset of the other and therefore, both are valid. From a strictly human point of view, a controlled environment may be better for uneducated users and a loose environment may be better for more creative types. I don't know, I am no psychologist :-) In either points of view there are substantial benefits obtained by unambiguously enumerating the contents of components. One such benefit is that the feature set of a "distribution" becomes a lot more obvious. Regards, Serge Caron _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
