On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:16:19PM +0000, Imran Rafique wrote: > Its been interesting reading through this thread. I'd like to suggest > some amendments to Peter's proposals, addressing some of the concerns > highlighted.
I haven't had time to digest this fully, but here are some initial remarks: Your proposal ignores one of the main design goals of the distributed egg proposal; it is not backwards compatible; from what I understood, you want to modify chicken-install. The other remark I have is that it would require substantial rethinking and recoding of our tools, including making a full-fledged package manager from chicken-install complete with user-overlaid local patches. Felix has said before he doesn't want that, and I support him in that; OSes have package managers, and chicken-install should stay simple. Finally, I think your approach also requires people to submit their finished eggs somewhere as a tarball once they've tagged a release? That also ignores the design goal "no extra hassle". Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
