From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-11-09T09:30:05+09:00
Subject: Re: CPAN Style installer

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:09:10AM +0900, tom wrote:
> 	* I want to see a package installation system usable to install 
> most potential libraries. This is more important to me than it being the 
> best packaging system. RAA integration is a key part of this.

If you were able to install most potential libraries through rpkg,
would you consider RAA integration still necessary?

> 	* A packaging system stands the best chance if it can work with 
> the kinds of packages currently available - this means using source style 
> packages

Most current rpkg packages are source packages.

> 	* This doesn't preclude the use of more advanced packaging in 
> addition, this particularly applies to the problem of Windows binaries, 
> which will need binary packaging anyway.

Yes.

> 	* The packaging system should not make use of a database anywhere 
> on the system, though it should be possible to identify what packages are 
> installed - this can be done by using version info in the packages.

Later you suggest `Use RAA as database'.  There might be some
confusion about this, as we're talking about at least three databases:

- a database of metadata for available packages.  Right now this is
  local because I pay Internet connection by the minute and I don't
  like online just to browse packages; I'll add capability for a
  remote database, either LDAP or a RAA backend or both (though
  information is needed which the RAA doesn't carry and will
  have to be found somewhere else);

- a database of metadata for installed packages, used to detect
  conflicts with packages to be installed, and to check whether their
  dependency requirements are already satisfied;

- a database of installed files, used to protect against accidental
  clashing of package files.

The latter two are in the old rpkg and still have to be integrated in
the new one.

You also suggest `Use versioning information in source files, not a
db'.  Doable, provided all authors agree on a way to version their
sources.

I'm not sure having the distribution's consistency depend on the
upstream developers is wise, though (just think about the dead links
in the RAA).  IMHO it's easier to apply a clean and consistent policy
in the packaging stage while still leaving developers free to organize
their work in the way they're most confortable with.

> Interestingly, I suspect that features to accomodate those goals could be 
> added to rpkg without detracting from any of rpkg's value. The features 
> being:
> 	* Handle source packages
> 	* Use RAA as database
> 	* Use versioning information in source files, not a db
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss doing the work to rpkg instead of raa-install if
> these were features you would be happy to have added to rpkg.

I'd be happy to discuss it, too.  Hopefully I have clarified some
design decisions with which you can agree.

> So am I crazy or what?

What.

:-)

Massimiliano