On 7/27/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Dann wrote: > > I found a post somewhere (that I can't find any more!) that mentioned > > a plan that I understood to be something along the lines of replacing > > the program symlinking solution with a unionfs-based system. Did I > > understand this correctly? > > Actually I think the eventual plan is a custom FUSE-based filesystem, > probably.
Yes, that's the plan. It's a unionfs-style solution, but not using unionfs directly because it doesn't scale too well for hundreds of layers (it's just not what it was designed for) and we have some other stuff in mind related to versioning beyond just merging layers. > > A while before I found that post, I spent > > some time thinking really carefully about what I'd like personally in > > terms of usability from Gobolinux, and this came top of my list, so it's > > particularly exciting if it's already in the pipeline! My thoughts > > particularly lie with programs being re-locatable (ie not necessarily in > > the /Programs dir). > > > > I really think Apple got things right when it comes to program > > installation, as I mentioned in a post on the user list a few weeks > > back. I believe ChrootCompile produces packages, is that right? (I'm > > afraid I haven't put much time into trying it yet.) This sounds ideal > > to me. I much prefer the idea of ending up with a package, rather than > > it being installed directly like Compile, and the chroot jail has > > obvious advantages. > > such as chroot only being usable by root, or else risking security flaws > if there is any bug :-( > > I believe ChrootCompile just installs the program when it's done, the > same way Compile does. A "package" would need to be much more > sophisticated. Yes, ChrootCompile produces a package (Foo--1.0--i686.tar.bz2) which should then be installed into /Programs. > > What if you want to try out Prog-2.0 whilst needing to work a lot with > > Prog-1.0 (e.g. constantly opening and closing the program)?You can set > > Prog-2.0 compiling and continue using Prog-1.0 without worrying about > > the version suddenly changing when the compile ends... That's why I > > like the ChrootCompile technique of producing a package. > > That's already true with normal Compile. If you don't want the new > version to have any impact whatsoever on the system when installed, > unless that version is explicitly invoked, maybe try `Compile > --no-symlink --no-updatesettings --no-unmanaged` or similar? Might be enough, but ChrootCompile is really the safest way to Compile without messing with the system. > Myself, > I'd like a way to conservatively symlink and update settings and > unmanaged files if they're not there already, preferring to leave intact > a previous version of the program. Interesting thought, but I'm not sure how useful it would be in practice. > >> After all, there's not only the application > >> to consider, but the libraries it depends upon as well. Where do > >> those go? > > Indeed it is the dominance of libraries that makes package management be > essential - in fact the lack of any decent package manager was the most > compelling reason that drove me to leave Mac OS X two years ago. (Fink, > at least at the time, was not decent enough for my standards, and as > I've been to Gentoo, Ubuntu and now GoboLinux... looking for good > package management.) Comparing ourselves to these alternatives, I think we have the concepts laid out pretty well; we just need to keep working on the implementation. -- Hisham _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
