[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       crux
Subject:    Re: Do we need a new package utility?
From:       Mike MacLeod <mikem () ns ! sympatico ! ca>
Date:       2002-06-20 18:25:47
[Download RAW message or body]

Jahannes

    First off, before I start putting my foot in my mouth, realize that 
I have never used debien, so I've never used apt-get, and I haven't used 
redhat since 6.2, and I had a winmodem, so I couldn't get new rpms, I've 
never used mandrake, or SuSE, so I can't even talk about that package 
tools they use. So when you say an 'apt-get' like tool, I can only make 
an educated guess as to what this really means.
    Now then, onto the main text. I realize that much of the 
 funtionality I mentioned in my last email would be easy to code, or 
would reuse a lot of code already used for other features, but I see 
this as a good thing. I think we should avoid having the new utility ask 
too many questions though. I think most CRUX users (myself at least) 
would rather enter in a command, see what dependencies are going to be 
installed, and then entering another and seeing it done, rather then 
having it ask us all the time. When I'm about to compile glibc, xfree86, 
or some other large compilation, I like to just enter a command and go 
have a milkshake and enjoy a walk. Even if it only asks these questions 
right away, I still think it would fit the CRUX philosophy to keep 
things even simpler. Simpler, not necessarily easier, in a user-friendly 
sort of fashion.
    I like your 'rollback' idea, and think it should definetly be part 
of any new utility that we build.
    The reason I said that the pkgfiles should list all the dependencies 
is because someone else mentioned previously in a thread (I don't really 
feel like checking to see who right now) said that they only included 
the dependencies in contrib and unofficial in their pkgfiles. This 
wouldn't really work for me, since I don't tend to install everything 
from base and opt, and I think presuming that CRUX users install 
everything from base and opt is foolish if we intend to use the listed 
dependencies to install large applications.
    I don't know the details of your repository system, but I think that 
we should work with the current ports tree in CRUX. This new utility 
should simplify the task of building large packages and applications, 
and I think that having a completely seperate repository or 
organizational system would destroy much of this simplicity. The issue 
of ports that are too specific for the unofficial tree is something that 
I don't think the new utility (at least the one I have in mind) should 
solve.
    I think it's just a bit early to get rid of the ports tree, because 
this means that users are limited to whichever repository they decide to 
use as the base for their system, which removes some (or all) of the 
flexibility of CRUX that makes it great (at least if I understand what 
you mean by your repositories).
    I think that requiring users to have python installed would also be 
detrimental to the flexibility and functionality of the utility.
    To sum up, your utility might be useful, but I think (and I've been 
saying that throughout here to emphasize that this is a personal 
opinion) that we need a utility specifically designed to work within the 
tools and system that CRUX already has in place, one that will pick up 
where pkgmk leaves off, and that will compliment, rather then compete 
with the pkgutils we already have. This utility (should it ever actually 
happen) should be such that Per will want to release 0.94 just so he can 
showcase the wonder of the pkgutil that the community built *smiles*.

Mike MacLeod

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]