On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 15:58 +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: > Having maintained a couple of CDDs [0] for a while I've gained a bit > of knowledge of the problems of creating and (especially) maintaining > custom distributions, and let me say that the overall philosophy and > designed behind PDK is quite appealing. I would say that you really > got to the point. >
Thanks! That's a wonderful complement! I'm glad you've poked at it. > If this is correct, it would be quite laborious to create new > components.. I admit that when I first run pdk resolve on a test > component I thought that I would have gotten some automatic guessing > of the dependencies. > > Note also that sometimes the dependencies of package change (for > example for a compiler transition, e.g. libfoo1 -> libfoo1c), is the > maintainer of a component supposed to manually change the component > accordingly? If so we'd need a command capable to do that > automatically and to report what has changed. > > What is the proper way of proceeding here? > First of all component dependencies are vaporware atm. When they exist, they will be high level. For instance, gnome needs x11. xorg-6.9 and xorg-7 might both be available and satisfy it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't mostly confined to lsb module names. So there would be few of them. Clearly from the way I'm speculating this stuff is vapor. > Anther issue is that AFAICS all the components published here: > > http://apt-devel.componentizedlinux.org/linux/cl/progeny.com/ > > are made for sarge. Are you maintaining there some in flux components > following etch? > If you look a little closer you will see that they are a mix of sarge and etch. -- Darrin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
