On 8/25/07, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having submitted several binary packages and had some chats on IRC with users
> trying to install the same packages I came to the conclusion that we need to
> rework the dependency scheme a lot.
>
> First I'd like to change dependencies to be none recursive.
I agree. It's not really necessary (now), and it'd be clearer if they
weren't all listed.
>
> Secondly I want a new dependency scheme for binary packages. Below is a draft
> I've been thinking about:
> For each needed library file a corresponding file is created in
> Resources/LibraryDependencies, with the contents of which *current*
> application provides that file, e.g.
<snip>
> The reason for this new scheme is that while our current dependencies scheme
> might work for recipes, when one builds from source, it's not always that
> simple with binaries. At the same time this scheme can handle badly written
> dependencies as it's much more robust.
That sounds fine to me too. I'm not sure about the network-dependence,
though; it seems it would involve a lot of fetching. Building a tree
for the entire system could mean fetching every one of them, and the
LibraryDependencies/* files aren't long-term cacheable.
> This is just a draft, but there are two major points I'd like to adhere to:
> 1) Packages should be self contained - no information about a package should
> be stored outside of the package.
I hope that means "no information about a package should be stored
ONLY outside of the package"; otherwise resolving dependencies
recursively will be impossible without actually fetching all the
packages involved. We'd still need to keep dependency files for each
package around so they could be resolved in advance.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
