On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:52 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
I think AUR2 would be just a temporary solution for our final
purposes. I
started to plan/design quite a few weeks ago the new AUR generation
with
Louipc, and we think of an absolutely new implementation/idea. We
would like
for AUR to be a command-line based application like pacman. Well,
I'd like
to see a more robust, and efficient impelementation of it, not a web
based
application.
It depends what these "final purposes" are. The web frontend I am
developing is exactly that, a web frontend. It works in exactly the
same way as the package catalogue on the main site. Just because
there's a web frontend doesn't mean that "third party" clients can't
communicate with the server. After all, pacman does.
It is this separation of functionality that allows the server, web
frontend and command line or GUI clients to co-exist. There's no
"temporary solution", your project simply has other goals. If you
don't like the idea of a web frontend, simply forget about it. Even if
you make a server, api and client, I will still be able to make a web
frontend that utilizes that.
On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:17 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
I use pacman codebase as a sample, because I dealt with it in the
past to
understand, and I think it's a good project as a starting point, I
admire
pacman-project :P And it's better to understand two similar codebase
than
understanding two absolutely different codebase, I think so.
It won't be a pacman wrapper, if you think of that, however I
established
for it with command-line options to wrapper pacman and makepkg
applications.
But to tell truth here too, I'd like if it was just optional
dependency of
aurman. I don't like third party tools and applications as a
dependency, so
I avoid them as I can, so I don't say with it pacman or makepkg is a
bad
program or something similar, just that I'd like to be as
independent as I
can. I won't be full independent from pacman/makepkg because of
PKGBUILD,
PKGINFO files e.g. I linked the above suggestions above to give
idea/suggestion/recommandation.
Sorry for my relatively long post :)
Best Regards,
Laszlo Papp
I think it would help if we actually knew what this client was meant
to do. It seems to me like there's a _lot_ of feature creep. I don't
understand why you forked the pacman source code (including libalpm).
The whole point of libalpm is to have a common library which handles
database manipulation and package reading. Why fork it instead of
simply linking against it? If the libalpm code differs, I doubt that
people would want to use your client, for fear of breaking their
database.
I'd also like to know specifically what the server would do. I really
can't think of a reason not to use a mature and efficient web server
who's specific purpose is to serve files. Considering that a web
server is perfect for this purpose, I also don't understand why you're
so opposed to a web frontend. It only seems logical. The two do not
have to be tightly coupled.
