On 7/4/07, Anshuman Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great idea, I'm going to put the prototype implementation together
> since the prototype might be just as involved as the logic needed in
> Compile,RemoveProgram...
>
> The solution which includes all ideas discussed below, will show bro
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:43:24 -0400
Anshuman Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Ricardo, this is similar to what we're thinking just that this
> uses files and the approach we're considering is symbolic links...
I agree that symlinks seem to be the best choice.
>
> I haven't used Free
Thanks Ricardo, this is similar to what we're thinking just that this
uses files and the approach we're considering is symbolic links...
I haven't used FreeBSD much but I think the question here is how does it
maintain the +REQUIRED_BY ? Does each program edit these files and add
their dependen
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:16:28 -0400
Anshuman Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great idea, I'm going to put the prototype implementation together
> since the prototype might be just as involved as the logic needed
> in Compile,RemoveProgram...
>
> The solution which includes all ideas dis
Great idea, I'm going to put the prototype implementation together
since the prototype might be just as involved as the logic needed in
Compile,RemoveProgram...
The solution which includes all ideas discussed below, will show broken
links for missing dependencies as well ...
I will start w
On 7/2/07, Anshuman Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hisham,
> Did you disagree with the alternate location for the Dependency files
> and Links as well as he has described?
My first impression was that his suggestions added to what you
proposed, combining the best aspects of your and Jan's
Hisham,
Did you disagree with the alternate location for the Dependency files
and Links as well as he has described? In general, I'm pushing the links
idea for dependencies for the simple reason(s) below:
...file system as package manager
...any decent package manager needs a way of tracking fo
On 7/2/07, Andy Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this proposal is coming too close to "reimplementing a
> database in a filesystem." The point of using the filesystem should be
> to *avoid* having a special central construct just for tracking
> dependencies (or whatever). Ideally, there
I think this proposal is coming too close to "reimplementing a
database in a filesystem." The point of using the filesystem should be
to *avoid* having a special central construct just for tracking
dependencies (or whatever). Ideally, there should just be one method
of storing the dependencies for
similar, but 'gobo' is in the details :)...
If you have the rev links in a subfolder...if the folder is deleted
then the reverse dependencies are lost...the right place is
/System/Links...which can be backed up as needed
The primary concerns in that response are to do with 'maintaining' the
li
On 7/2/07, Anshuman Aggarwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, I was convinced this (link based) approach is perfect for
> gobo...but the lack of response was worrying me :) ...I will document
> the details on the wiki and send out a link...then if everyone is in
> agreement we can work out a pl
Thanks, I was convinced this (link based) approach is perfect for
gobo...but the lack of response was worrying me :) ...I will document
the details on the wiki and send out a link...then if everyone is in
agreement we can work out a plan of introducing it into gobo scripts.
would appreciate som
On Sunday 01 July 2007 18:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is done through a system wide folder:
> /System/Links/Dependencies
*SNIP* Bravo! I like this solution! It seems very Gobo-ish to
me.
:Peter
___
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-
I have a proposed solution for the Dependency issue...based on the
tradition of links already deeply integrated in our beloved
Gobo...presently any broken links indicate an unclean removal of a
program/library etcno harm done typically yet ideally the remove
program would take care of it...in t
MLA-Gobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] I'm thinking of something like deborphan; show those programs that
> nothing depends upon. [...]
Here's a script that finds Programs which nothing depends on and
haven't been accessed in the last 30 days. Think of it as like
deborphan - popcon = ListUn
15 matches
Mail list logo
