On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:36:39PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > * Andreas Rottmann writes: > > I think it would be not a bad idea to ship them as separate > > packages. This way one could install a 'replacement' pacakge for any > > of them. And for ease of upgrade: There does nothing speak against a > > hurd meta-package IMHO... > I think it would be bad even if the interface stabilises or whatever > (as Marcus noted). Would you like to see a separate package for all > the GNU utilities? I sure wouldn't, ld in a specific package, gcc in > another, ls in one, cp in even a weirder place. ;) > I would rather abolish the whole mentality of packages and have one > central system called GNU with all relevant sources in /src. Just > like *BSD has.
Conceptually though, I think it is a very appealing idea. To be able to have a very small micro kernel in a system and do an entire/partial system upgrade without ever having to reboot the hardware -- instead sending a signal to the software (maybe the micro kernel) to restart itself and the system. Or perhaps even simpler, by restarting process after process in some well formed fashion. Even though my ideas never seem to be able to leave my mind and fit electronically on any media I hope my point gets through. The idea is something like minimizing downtime in high availability systems. An issue that even regular desktop users might be interested in -- no more reboots (in theory). So, no matter how the packaging is managed (ports system, deb's or whatever), or the system itself is implemented. I think it's conceptually a really good idea. Even if we're light years away from that "goal" right now. Regards /Joachim -- Joachim Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +46-(0)21-123348 <http://www.vmlinux.org/joachim/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
