Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 09:03, David Douthitt wrote: > On Friday 19 April 2002 08:13 am, you wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 00:19, David Douthitt wrote: > > > > I'm not keen on that either. Maybe I'm influenced by my RPM bias > > > - but a file of: > > > > > > Tag: > > > Tag: > > > Tag: > > > > > > Seems good enough to me. > > > OK. The "Tag: " will be harder for me to parse, but if you > > need to access the information in the file from a running LEAF > > system I don't see many options. :-( > > I can concieve of a scenario like this: > > A person downloads the LEAF Resource CDROM, then boots with it and > uses the resulting system as an anonymous FTP site, making the LEAF > Repository available to all. David, Nice idea, this gives local sites a repository of our packages to work with. Have you attempted to create an iso that provides this ftp package server? > This could even be used inside of a corporate or similar setting, > where packages could be downloaded elsewhere (across the network) at > will. This sounds great. :-) > > Now that we're going to use the "Tag: " format, don't we > > need something like autospec or dpkg-gencontrol for package > > developers to use? > > I'd like to keep it simple, myself. Having built a few (few) > RPMs, I can say that the full *.spec file is definitely overkill for > LEAF :-) Agreed. However, I believe we need to define a minimum set of required fields, or the file is of limited value. Will you want to use this file for limited dependency checks? Also, what modifications to lrcfg and apkg are necessary? > I've never used (or heard of) autospec, so I can't say what that is. http://www.npsnet.com/danf/software/ autospec, a program which creates Red Hat Package Manager (RPM) spec files automatically from a tar ball. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Friday 19 April 2002 08:13 am, you wrote: > On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 00:19, David Douthitt wrote: > > I'm not keen on that either. Maybe I'm influenced by my RPM bias > > - but a file of: > > > > Tag: > > Tag: > > Tag: > > > > Seems good enough to me. > OK. The "Tag: " will be harder for me to parse, but if you > need to access the information in the file from a running LEAF > system I don't see many options. :-( I can concieve of a scenario like this: A person downloads the LEAF Resource CDROM, then boots with it and uses the resulting system as an anonymous FTP site, making the LEAF Repository available to all. This could even be used inside of a corporate or similar setting, where packages could be downloaded elsewhere (across the network) at will. > Now that we're going to use the "Tag: " format, don't we > need something like autospec or dpkg-gencontrol for package > developers to use? I'd like to keep it simple, myself. Having built a few (few) RPMs, I can say that the full *.spec file is definitely overkill for LEAF :-) I've never used (or heard of) autospec, so I can't say what that is. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 00:19, David Douthitt wrote: > > Only the LEAF system and shell requirements are problems for XML > > metadata. > > > > What was your opinion of CSV (comma separated values)? > > I'm not keen on that either. Maybe I'm influenced by my RPM bias - > but a file of: > > Tag: > Tag: > Tag: > > Seems good enough to me. David, OK. The "Tag: " will be harder for me to parse, but if you need to access the information in the file from a running LEAF system I don't see many options. :-( Now that we're going to use the "Tag: " format, don't we need something like autospec or dpkg-gencontrol for package developers to use? ref. http://www.rpm.org/RPM-HOWTO/build.html#SPEC-FILE http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-controlfields.html -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On 4/18/02 at 8:04 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 22:48, David Douthitt wrote: > This sounds like XML metadata to me. > > > ...and with the following requirements: > > > > * Expandability (add tags at will) > > XML can handle this. And can it handle a tag that it's never seen before? > > * Robustness (unknown tags don't matter) > > I believe XML can handle this, if structured properly. > > > * Ability to be used on an LRP system > > * Analyzed by shell code > > Please explain the necessity for these two requirements? The latter of the two is implied by the former. It seems like a perfect use for a leaf system to be able to fire up boa and access LRP packages from web or from proftp. I already had created a CGI that served up any package currently loaded on the system, and created the package on the fly for downloading. > > * Simple > > XML metadata files are simple text files with structure. I > agree that a CSV file is easier to read. > > > To me, that all works against XML. > > Only the LEAF system and shell requirements are problems for XML > metadata. > > What was your opinion of CSV (comma separated values)? I'm not keen on that either. Maybe I'm influenced by my RPM bias - but a file of: Tag: Tag: Tag: Seems good enough to me. -- David Douthitt UNIX Systems Administrator HP-UX, Unixware, Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 22:48, David Douthitt wrote: > On 4/17/02 at 7:54 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 19:50, David Douthitt wrote: > > > Will the .desc/.xml file's primary purpose be indexing our > > packages, or will it be used by the LEAF release/branch > > internally? If its intended use is for indexing, I believe > > we should use a XML metadata format. If its for internal > > use, a CSV text file is probably best. > > My thought was to be able to provide the following abilities: > > * Indexing (by groups) > * Requirements > * Keyword searching > * Descriptions David, This sounds like XML metadata to me. > ...and with the following requirements: > > * Expandability (add tags at will) XML can handle this. > * Robustness (unknown tags don't matter) I believe XML can handle this, if structured properly. > * Ability to be used on an LRP system > * Analyzed by shell code Please explain the necessity for these two requirements? > * Simple XML metadata files are simple text files with structure. I agree that a CSV file is easier to read. > To me, that all works against XML. Only the LEAF system and shell requirements are problems for XML metadata. What was your opinion of CSV (comma separated values)? You may want to take a look at this article. It validates your shell parsing argument. http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-sbxml.html -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On 4/17/02 at 7:54 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 19:50, David Douthitt wrote: > Will the .desc/.xml file's primary purpose be indexing our > packages, or will it be used by the LEAF release/branch > internally? If its intended use is for indexing, I believe > we should use a XML metadata format. If its for internal > use, a CSV text file is probably best. My thought was to be able to provide the following abilities: * Indexing (by groups) * Requirements * Keyword searching * Descriptions ...and with the following requirements: * Expandability (add tags at will) * Robustness (unknown tags don't matter) * Ability to be used on an LRP system * Analyzed by shell code * Simple To me, that all works against XML. -- David Douthitt UNIX Systems Administrator HP-UX, Unixware, Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On 4/16/02 at 7:26 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:46, David Douthitt wrote:
> David,
> I think we should use the program's name, or place it in what RedHat
> calls "Summary". Personally I prefer the deb format, but it doesn't
> include summary/program name information. :-(
Personally, I like the RPM (Red Hat) format :P
> Program: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables = RPM Summary = DEB N/A
> Executable: upx = RPM Name = DEB Package
> Package: upx.lrp = RPM N/A = DEB Filename
>
> Debian packages provide the following information (apt-cache show):
> Package, Version, Priority, Section, Maintainer, Depends, Suggests,
> Conflicts, Provides, Replaces, Architecture, Filename, Size, MD5sum,
> Description, installed-size.
>
> RedHat rpms have this summary information (rpm -q -i):
> Name, Version, Release, Install date, Group, Size, URL,
> Summary, Description, Relocations, Vendor, Build Date,
> Build Host, Source RPM, License
There's a LOT more than that - rpm -qi only lists those things
that are used by the current package.
> Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package?
The creator of the package.
> I believe these tags will cause confusion
> if there is no set categorization template.
I agree. Personally, I believe that:
1. A consistent standard is a good idea, and should be done.
2. A consistent standard will not be followed by all, and there will
be some confusion.
Go to http://www.rpmfind.org and do a look up by Group and you'll see
what I mean. Look up by Distribution and it's similar.
One thing I was thinking of - these *.desc files could (should?) be
treated the way HTML is: an unknown keyword (matches the pattern
/^[^:]*:/ ) causes a line to be ignored. So if someone suddenly
started using a new tag ("Architecture: PPC" for example) then these
lines would be ignored by current code.
Also, to be able to ignore multiline tags, one should ignore all lines
that start with a whitespace character after an unknown tag.
> > > Name: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables
> >
> > Ouch! That's neither a program name nor a package name.
> > The program is "upx"
>
> In my opinion that is the program name, while upx is the
> executable name (see example above).
Program: upx
Summary: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables (UPX)
...and package name is: ${program}.lrp
...and .version is: ${version}-${release}
...and so forth...
> > > Version: 1.20-1
> >
> > upx is not version 1.20-1 but version 1.20 (at least in
> > this example).
>
> In your example, why did you indicate a release level of 1? Is the
> release level different than the hyphen would indicate?
A release level indicates the release of the package, and the version
is the version level of the software.
It could have just as easily been:
Version: 2.54BETA20
Release: 2
...like nmap - which leads to nmap.version being "2.54BETA20-2"
--
David Douthitt
UNIX Systems Administrator
HP-UX, Unixware, Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 09:46, guitarlynn wrote: > > Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package? I > > believe these tags will cause confusion if there is no set > > categorization template. > > Maybe there should be one file templated out with certain information, > like source version, package revision, packagename, glibc-required, > maintainer, etc put a space/comma seperated line similar to the > LRP= line in syslinux.cfg for the repository. This would be easily > parsed by awk for administration of the list... but this would require > strict adherance to the template format to work. Lynn, Good idea, but I think XML meta-data would be the preferred format. This would allow parsing by many different programs. Maybe the filename should be /var/lib/lrpkg/pkg.xml instead of pkg.desc. We still have to agree on what fields should be included, and their names. Also, I'm still concerned about the keywords and categories. How will we define them for each package? Will we use RedHat's/Debian's keywords/categories or something else? > > > > Version: 1.20-1 > > > > > > upx is not version 1.20-1 but version 1.20 (at least in this > > > example). > > > > In your example, why did you indicate a release level of 1? Is the > > release level different than the hyphen would indicate? > > It would indicate to me that it uses the same compliled source-code, > but the package scripting (for .lrp) has been revised/patched. This > will likely happen on occasion since the package maintainer does > add scripting for use with LEAF. Ok, I'm confused. What is the difference between a patch level and a revision? Aren't they different names for the same thing? David's example (developer.rtf) had a revision of 1, so I included the -1. If there was no revision, shouldn't his example have used 0? This would have resulted in a version of 1.20-0 (aka 1.20). -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
> Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package? I > believe these tags will cause confusion if there is no set > categorization template. Maybe there should be one file templated out with certain information, like source version, package revision, packagename, glibc-required, maintainer, etc put a space/comma seperated line similar to the LRP= line in syslinux.cfg for the repository. This would be easily parsed by awk for administration of the list... but this would require strict adherance to the template format to work. > > > Version: 1.20-1 > > > > upx is not version 1.20-1 but version 1.20 (at least in this > > example). > > In your example, why did you indicate a release level of 1? Is the > release level different than the hyphen would indicate? It would indicate to me that it uses the same compliled source-code, but the package scripting (for .lrp) has been revised/patched. This will likely happen on occasion since the package maintainer does add scripting for use with LEAF. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 03:46, David Douthitt wrote: > On 4/14/02 at 11:20 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > David outlines a package description file in his > > "Developing for LRP" guide. The format follows. > > I propose the following changes: > > Comments follow... > > > use program name instead of package name, > > Thought those were supposed to be (close) to the same? Probably the > actual name of the binary or program should be used. David, I think we should use the program's name, or place it in what RedHat calls "Summary". Personally I prefer the deb format, but it doesn't include summary/program name information. :-( Program: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables = RPM Summary = DEB N/A Executable: upx = RPM Name = DEB Package Package: upx.lrp = RPM N/A = DEB Filename Debian packages provide the following information (apt-cache show): Package, Version, Priority, Section, Maintainer, Depends, Suggests, Conflicts, Provides, Replaces, Architecture, Filename, Size, MD5sum, Description, installed-size. RedHat rpms have this summary information (rpm -q -i): Name, Version, Release, Install date, Group, Size, URL, Summary, Description, Relocations, Vendor, Build Date, Build Host, Source RPM, License Does anyone know what information is provided by Debian udeb or Midori packages? > > remove "Keywords", "Release", and "Group". > > Bad idea. > > Keywords allow basic searches: > > cd /var/lib/lrpkg > grep -li "^Keywords: .*keyword*" | sed 's/.desc$//' > > Release allows you to separate releases from versions. > > Group is one of the best reasons for *.desc: what category IS this > package - allows nice creation of FTP repositories. Who determines what keywords and categories apply to each package? I believe these tags will cause confusion if there is no set categorization template. > > Name: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables > > Ouch! That's neither a program name nor a package name. The program > is "upx" In my opinion that is the program name, while upx is the executable name (see example above). > > Version: 1.20-1 > > upx is not version 1.20-1 but version 1.20 (at least in this example). In your example, why did you indicate a release level of 1? Is the release level different than the hyphen would indicate? -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
On 4/14/02 at 11:20 AM, Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David outlines a package description file in his > "Developing for LRP" guide. The format follows. > > /var/lib/lrpkg/pkg.desc > Name: upx > Version: 1.20 > Release: 1 > Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Packaged: Wed Jul 18 09:40:25 CDT 2001 > Keywords: compressor compress > Description: Use UPX to compress executables and kernels! > URL: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ > License: GPL2 > Group: Utilities/Compression > > I propose the following changes: Comments follow... > use program name instead of package name, Thought those were supposed to be (close) to the same? Probably the actual name of the binary or program should be used. > use ISO 8601 date format, I figured the date format could be whatever - ISO 8601 works for me > use version format from pkg.version, Yes and no... > add glibc version, Good idea... > remove "Keywords", "Release", and "Group". Bad idea. Keywords allow basic searches: cd /var/lib/lrpkg grep -li "^Keywords: .*keyword*" | sed 's/.desc$//' Release allows you to separate releases from versions. Group is one of the best reasons for *.desc: what category IS this package - allows nice creation of FTP repositories. > Name: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables Ouch! That's neither a program name nor a package name. The program is "upx" > Version: 1.20-1 upx is not version 1.20-1 but version 1.20 (at least in this example). > Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Packaged: 2001-07-18 > glibc: 2.1.3 > Description: UPX is a free, portable, extendable, high-performance > executable packer for several different executable formats. It > achieves an excellent compression ratio and offers very fast > decompression. Your executables suffer no memory overhead or > other drawbacks. > URL: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ > License: GPL2 -- David Douthitt UNIX Systems Administrator HP-UX, Unixware, Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
Everyone, I sent the prior message prematurely. On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 11:20, Mike Noyes wrote: > I propose the following changes: use program name instead of package > name, use ISO 8601 date format, use version format from pkg.version, add > glibc version, remove "Keywords", "Release", and "Group". add kernel version if applicable > Name: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables > Version: 1.20-1 > Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Packaged: 2001-07-18 > glibc: 2.1.3 kernel: N/A > Description: UPX is a free, portable, extendable, high-performance > executable packer for several different executable formats. It > achieves an excellent compression ratio and offers very fast > decompression. Your executables suffer no memory overhead or other > drawbacks. > URL: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ > License: GPL2 -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] Package description file proposal
Everyone, David outlines a package description file in his "Developing for LRP" guide. The format follows. /var/lib/lrpkg/pkg.desc Name: upx Version: 1.20 Release: 1 Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Packaged: Wed Jul 18 09:40:25 CDT 2001 Keywords: compressor compress Description: Use UPX to compress executables and kernels! URL: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ License: GPL2 Group: Utilities/Compression I propose the following changes: use program name instead of package name, use ISO 8601 date format, use version format from pkg.version, add glibc version, remove "Keywords", "Release", and "Group". Name: Ultimate Packer for eXecutables Version: 1.20-1 Packager: David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Packaged: 2001-07-18 glibc: 2.1.3 Description: UPX is a free, portable, extendable, high-performance executable packer for several different executable formats. It achieves an excellent compression ratio and offers very fast decompression. Your executables suffer no memory overhead or other drawbacks. URL: http://upx.sourceforge.net/ License: GPL2 -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
