Shawn Walker wrote:
Tom Mueller (plain-text) wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Tom Mueller wrote:
I'm not yet sure if having the concept of a "stream" makes this
easier to explain than just talking about "repositories".
Having the concept of streams allows users to largely be unaware of
the existence of repositories.
Is "largely unaware" actually "completely unaware"? If not, what are
the situations were a user would need to know about an repository. If
It should be limited to individuals that create their own package
repositories.
yes, then the term "repository" is really going away because users
never know about it. So all we have is publishers, streams and
depots. And if that is the case, we could substitute the word
"repository" for "stream" here because people know what a repository
is, but they don't know what a stream is and we don't need the word
stream.
Not quite, the way I view it is that repositories are where the packages
live, although most users won't have to know this. Streams are defined
by the publisher metadata and appropriate tagged packages.
So are say users only need to know about repositories and not streams ?
That would be nice because that I believe would line up the
terminology with what other systems use (ie repository rather than stream).
This last statement may have explained it for me.
Is a "repository" just the file system container for a set of packages?
At this point, that's the plan. Although, formally, we will likely
allow it to be in a zip, tar.gz, etc. This is part of the tentative
work towards reaching an on-disk format.
Yummy on-disk format :-)
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
