Max et al:

May I suggest that included in the plan is some sort of effort to
establish a policy for other package systems to follow to avoid
interference?  Maybe this is more an issue for the other package systems
out there, but some publicly-documented guidance wouldn't hurt, I think.

I wrote up a proposal for how PackageMaker pkg files and fink can get
along, and I'm eager to get your feedback on it.  I can't speak for Apple,
but if they are bundling their system software in pax-based packages,
then I doubt this issue will go away any time soon.

So here are my suggestions on how to make things work together well:
    http://www.macgimp.org/fink

Now that I've got an email server glitch sorted out, I look forward to
working with you all directly on this list (and fink-user too.)

Best,



Mat Caughron
MacGIMP.org admin


> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:38:04 +0100
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [Fink-devel] plan
>
> I want to start a PLAN file in CVS which contains the steps we plan
> for the future, and for which release each is targeted. We should
> also maybe fix what features we think are necessary for a 1.0 release.
>
> Pre 1.0:
>
> * shlibs support - I am going to work on this during weekend
>
> * two-level hierachy inside trees - the long ago discussed move from
> a one level deep hierachy (gnome, games, editors, etc.) to a
> two-level one. We need to agree on a set of directories for this, I
> think, and some tools for the bin/srcdist will have to be adapted.
>
> * support for java packages
>
> * A way to sign .deb files (and maybe als .info files), and to
> automatically verify these signatures. This might not seems that
> important right now, but definitly will be in the future. I think we
> should use gnupg for this. At least all of the fink core developers
> will have to have a key, ideally all cross-signed with each other.
> Whenever somebody makes a binary release available, he'll sign it
> with his personal key. This is no easy thing, and probably will have
> to be discuessed in a full thread of its own.
>
> * Move to a new package format - yes or no, and which. This has to be
> carefully designed, I think.
>
>
> Post 1.0 (this doesn't mean we can't do it before, but it's not
> necessary for 1.0 either)
>
> * interactive mode
> * GUI
>
>
> Please mention things I forgot and which you think are important for
> future fink versions.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Max
> --
> -----------------------------------------------
> Max Horn
> Software Developer
>
> email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> phone: (+49) 6151-494890
>
>


_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel

Reply via email to