Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Sorry (again) for the lag O:) > > I prefer very late than never. :-) > > > Sounds good, though the format of each sexp (specially the > > dependency stuff) needs to be pondered about. I think that much > > of this data can be grabbed from the Free Software Directory. > > Yup, having an easy to grab all this info will make a database easy > to be generated. We must discuss about the format itself. SEXPs, > Double dot separated values, etc.. any proposal? idea? > > I prefer sexp's since it allows us to do crazy things, if we want to. > Double dot seperate values, etc don't. >
I also think that we should use SEXP's. > > > In metadata we could store install/deinstall scripts. > > > > A package must work without these. Simply extracting the package > > to /stow should be enough. > > I think having pre/post install scripts would be pretty nice. > > We all agreed that they should be avoided at all costs. There are > several issues with them, for one, what happens if you have a pre/post > install/deinstall script that _must_ be ran for the package to be > successfully installed? Then a simple `tar -C /stow -xzvf > package.tgz' won't work, which is how the package manager works. If > we, in the future, come to a point where we really really need > pre/post install/deinstall scripts, then we can add such a thing. But > I have looked and I cannot see any reason why any package really needs > it, one can work around what is done in the pre/post install/deinstall > script by other means. > > Yes, please, let's _try_ to avoid the pre/post install/deinstall scripts at all cost. They tend to create too many inconsistencies and weird behaviours. Who is woking on this SEXP package manager thing? Regards, _______________________________________________ gnu-system-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-system-discuss
