From: Holden Glova <dsafari@...>
Date: 2002-07-07T09:29:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Packaging ideas (was: Re: packaged REXML)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 10:23, Sean Russell wrote:
> Ok, so this is what I'm thinking.  Give me access to your sources, and I'll
> see if I can provide some code, rather than making you do everything:
>
> I want the following features in a distribution mechanism:
>
> 1) The distribution spec completely disassociated from the source tarball. 
> As we've talked about, this means that I can build a spec for, say, Dave
> Thomas' rdoc without Dave knowing that his software is being downloaded and
> installed by rpkg.
> 2) As much introspection on the install as possible.  When the distribution
> spec is by neccessity large and complex, people don't write them.
> 3) Support for both precompiled and source archives
> 4) Patching support
> 5) CVS support
>
> In as much as it is possible, offload all of the work of compiling and
> installing onto the package -- it should know best how to compile and
> install itself.  The distribution mechanism should just know how to fetch
> the package, calculate dependancies, tell the package to compile and
> install itself, and manage resources on the client side (tracking installed
> files and so on).
>
> (1) and (2) are important because practically, they greatly simplify
> writing distribution specs.  (3) is, well, core functionality.  (4) is
> important because it allows third parties to provide improvements to the
> standard distribution.  (5) is important for terse downloads.
>
> Are these goals achievable within the framework of rpkg?

Sounds practically like portage :)

- -- 
Signed,
Holden Glova
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9J4u50X8w8X71zPcRAkaQAJ0bIseDT5trb6BGb72+d1+fudSMJgCbBhuz
PQJQkgZ1tkN212eiSq/bDYc=
=2gal
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----