Re: [aps-devel] From source?

[Wolfgang Jaehrling]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 02:02:48PM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
> 1: less pressure on the packagers.  You don't have to build N binary package
> files, just a (guile) script that builds the stuff.  As a former Debian
> packager, I can assure you that this is no light issue.

That is why there are servers that build the packages for all the
architectures, no?  I currently fail to see how this is an advantage.
You have the experience to know it better than I do, so please explain
it to me.

> 2: customizability.

Yes, this looks like a valid point, though not a major one since one
can do it the way Debian did.

> 2.5: (sub-item of 2) optimization.

I personally will probably never understand why that is an
advantage... *shrug*

> 3: portability.

How is this more portable than setting up an autobuild-server for some
architecture?

> 4: tweakability.

A very good point, but is this that much harder with e.g. Debian?

> 5: (arguable) philosophy.

Agreed.

> Also, it operates on the assumption that the sources are available
> somewhere, without even considering for a second that sometimes they
> aren't.

What do you mean with `sometimes they aren't'?

> The single downside is that installing packages is much slower.

That the packages need to be build locally is actually a very huge
problem, because building software makes GNU/Hurd crash every few
hours currently, and while the situation might improve a bit during
the next few month, it will still remain a problem.

That it is slower to install software is also problematic because at
least 95% of all users don't care about `optimized' packages and are
not (yet) experienced enough to take advantage of the flexibility, so
_requireing_ users to build from source has no advantage for most of
them and they will see only the disadvantage.

> (Ok, it could be argued that it also requires a bigger "base" system - you
> need at least a sane development environment to install stuff.)

Not much of a problem these days.

> However, requiring each and every packager to build new binary
> packages every time there is an upstream release is, trust me on
> that, a sure cause of trouble.

Repeating it does not convince me, it rather makes me suspicious. :)
Please explain why and how it causes trouble.

> If you want to be as big (in number of packages and people) as
> Debian, you will inherit its problems.

I personally would be quite satisfied with a system that fits on one
CD-ROM, actually.

> (The Linux port of aps would then need to manage installed files the way
> more "traditional" packaging systems do.  No big deal - not as cool as the
> Hurd alternative, but pretty straightforward).

I personally will not even think about a port to GNU/Linux, because I
find it hard enough already without this added complexity - but if
someone else wants to do that, fine.

> What form does the package take when under /packages?  A file?  A directory
> tree?  Containing what?  How are versions represented/managed?
>
> How does the user express the desire to install/update/remove a package?  By
> running a program, as usual?  What about installing right off CVS, is it
> possible at all?

I wrote a proposal already, see the list archives.  Comments on that
are very welcome.  I suspect it contains a few flaws which I did not
discover yet.

> Sorry, in this case I don't understand what are you trying to build here.

I am also not _exactly_ sure about what what Robert plans, I just know
what I want: The GNU system.  Preferably at the 20th anniversary of
GNU in 2003.

Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang