El lun, 21-09-2009 a las 18:04 +0200, Lukas Renggli escribió: > > This is something that I can't understand. Is this supposed to be a > > package management system per se, a la Metacello, aptitude, yum?? > > Isn't just a installer of MC packages but tries to manage the MC > > database of packages in a way that is clean and *atomic*? > > No, as it says on the first line, it is a tool to perform basic > Monticello operations on multiple packages. It is based on scripts > that we wrote to handle the 70+ Seaside 3.0 packages, as well as code > we wrote for Flair, a system that has similar goals than Metacello, > but is now discontinued in favor of Metacello. Maybe Metacello will > use Gofer as its loader.
ok. > > So, there will be a registry of gofer installed operations so that can > > be utilized after the install operation (maybe months later)? > > No. Unless you store them somewhere. The class-side of Gofer has some > examples for common set of packages. > > > Or will just be for trying to install some group of packages and if some > > error happens immediatly revert? > > No. It uses the normal tools available through Monticello, but > provides a convenient interface. Furthermore it runs some additional > code to keep the image in a clean state. For example it ensures that > every working copy has an repository assigned, that repositories > pointing to the same physical location are of the same instance, that > unused repositories get removed again, that categories are properly > ordered, that unload operations do not leave empty categories and > protocols, etc. > I always tough that monticello have complete control over the packages installed and unloaded from an image. I also assumed that it cleaned its mess after each operation. It is good to know this. But, a question, shouldn't this be part of Monticello. Or monticello fixed so to not leave dirty images behind it. Well that is just a comment. I know that there are alread a dozen monticello versions. :) > > Can you relate the scenarios showing how gofer is intended to use, > > because until now (maybe my narrow perspective) the examples shown can > > be done also with ScriptLoader and Installer. > > Maybe the loading part can be performed by these tools (but then again > they mess up with the repositories), but not really the other > operations. > > > Other thing, I tried to convert my image install script but I can't > > finish because I install packages from monticello configurations (magma > > 1.0r42) and from my local directory repository. Neither of those options > > can be handled by gofer (as far as I can see). Of course this can be > > corrected, it is just to integrate the correct MC installer classes. > > Gofer is designed for Monticello only. ok. > > > That reminds me other thing, Installer can handle monticello > > configurations, is the corresponding way of loading the packages using > > gofer to list each package in the mcm file in a gofer script? So mcm > > will not used or it is just that there have no been time to add those > > capability to gofer? > > Yeah, a Gofer specification is very similar to a Monticello > Configuration. In fact when you use specific versions it is basically > the same, but then again it messes up with the repositories and > categories, something that drives me mad for years already :-) > > Cheers, > Lukas > Thanks -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
