Thank you. Your feedback has been most informative. I'll try to deal
with each of the issues I (think I) understand, to the best of my
knowledge.
> we don't have a package database - or rather the filesystem is the database.
Ah, yes. Sorry, that is what I meant by package database. I was
unaware
Matt Lawrence wrote:
> The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
>
> You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
> installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
> package format.
what needs to be flexible about it? For examp
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:28:03 +0200, Matt Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
>
> You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
> installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
> package
The last email was a bit long. I'll try my best to make this short ;)
You have an excellent package database system. This the core of any
installation method. However, what is needed is a flexible binary
package format.
When it comes to binaries, you can't get much more flexible than
binaries in
