[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: packaging system

From: Søren Hauberg
Subject: Re: packaging system
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:25:31 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404)

Stefan van der Walt wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 12:46:14PM +0200, S?ren Hauberg wrote:

Perhaps this approach is to simple? How much power should a package creator have?

It takes a lot of effort to geta system like this into place, so I
thought we might as well make it flexible.  That doesn't necessarily
mean a lot of additional effort.
Depends on how flexible it is :-)
You said in another mail the pre-install.m should be able to alter the installation struct (a structure containing various details on the installation, e.g. installation directory etc). This would give the packager alot of power, but why should the packager be able to alter the installation directory? My concern is that if we give the packager to much power, the installation script will have to perform alot of checking on what the package does to make sure it doesn't screw things up. Of course, if the packager doesn't have enough power the package system ends up unused.

P.S. Where can I get some information on the INDEX format
It's a very simple format -- look at the files included with Octave
Forge.  We have C++, Octave and Python parsers for it already :)
OK, so this is a file format to list which packages contains which files, right? I don't see the advantage of using this fileformat instead of putting the files from different packages in seperate directories. Am I missing the obvious?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]