* Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at sun.com> [2007-09-16 18:46]: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 07:34:30PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote: > > > It sounds as if you're planning on making radical alterations to the > > whole way in which software is managed. > > > > It sounds rather like Conary, actually. > > Indeed it does. :) The notion that one or more repositories are central to standard operations was inspired by apt and Conary, among others. An integrated build system was an "anti-inspiration".
> > > Our repository stores files individually, which eliminates that issue > > > -- you only ever pull exactly what you need to transition your system > > > to the package versions you've requested. > > > > How does this work without a repository? > > Without a repository? For the moment, we assume one, even if it's local. > We'll probably have to move beyond that, but I don't think it's going to > prove to be a common occurrence. There will be a marshallable package format for software publishers who don't choose to get their software into a repository. - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
