Re: [Chicken-hackers] Distributed egg repo proposal

[Imran Rafique]

On 18 March 2011 09:15, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:59:10AM +0000, Imran Rafique wrote:
>> > Felix said:
>> > When mixing trees that way, how do you ensure the combination of them
>> > is consistent?
>>
>> The global tree. I can't write to this.
>>
>>     + networking/
>>       + zmq/
>>         + recipe-zmq-1.0
>>         + recipe-zmq-2.0
>>         + patches/
>>
>> I want to add some of my own changes to zmq, which haven't been
>> accepted upstream by the zmq egg authors yet - but I need them for my
>> locally deployed chicken scheme codebase. I want to use the benefits
>> of the egg infrastructure for deploying this modified zmq lib locally
>> (possibly across multiple machines)
>
> I don't see why chicken-install needs to be bloated with all this stuff.
> Why not maintain a mercurial patch queue or use quilt.  You could also
> just have a local clone of a repo with your own changes?

Right. Till you have a situation where you've added customisations to
a dozen eggs (perhaps your org is deploying scheme on some
non-standard environment, necessitating these changes), and you need
to manage deploying all these customised eggs to multiple hosts.

And you end up wishing you could use the regular chicken egg
installation processes ...

I don't agree with the "bloat" assesment. If ci can read a global
tree, it can read a local one which has exactly the same format. If it
only looks in the local tree if it can't find the requested egg in the
global tree, then it doesn't get in the way of anything - until you
*need* this functionality and then create your local tree.


> Adding all this stuff to chicken-install needlessly complicates an
> intentionally simple tool.

Going back to your previous comment regarding not wanting to touch
chicken-install. If that is really the case, then everything I've said
here is moot anyway. I'm just wasting everyone's bandwidth.

--
Regards,
       Imran Rafique