Hey Robert,
I've learned some things about EUPS and Pacman from my demo, so I'd like
to talk to you a bit more about the build system.
I looked at the internals of eups_distribute a bit to understand how to
integrate with pacman. Correct me if I got this wrong, but I surmised
that the manifest file attempts to address how to express a package's
dependencies before it's been declared into the EUPS--a problem I didn't
appreciate previously.
I see two possible solutions for this. One is to continue to use the
manifest file mechanism, but to alter eups_distribute to list pacman
scripts instead of tarballs. The other solution is used in my demo in
which has pacman completely replace the use of eups_distribute. Pacman
scripts have a mechanism for expressing the package dependencies that
will automatically install them as necessary. My pacman scripts, as their
last step in the installation, calls eups_declare to register the package
with EUPS.
Now I'm not sure which solution is best, and I don't have a strong
preference apart from I don't know how difficult it would be to change
eups_distribute. You probably have a better idea and may have even gotten
started on this. The other issue is if there are other things that
eups_distribute does that I'm not aware of.
I actually would prefer a user syntax that is closer to
eups_distribute--where the package name and version are separate
arguments--than what I have for pacman. The pacman syntax is not
horrible, but we could wrap it is a simple wrapper.
thoughts?
cheers,
Ray
_______________________________________________
LSST-data mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
