Re: Package format/management ramblingss

[Barry deFreese]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>    Stow is small and reliant on Perl.  If the goal is to write our own, why 
>    not do it now?
>
> If someone wants to do that, it would be great.
> It is not a small job, though.
>
>  
Good job for Marco.. ;-P

>    So the the tarballs now contain the binary "application" and the 
>    metadata?  So we must re-create every tarball?
>
> I don't quite understand that statement.  When you say "re-create
> every tarball", who are you referring to, and for what job?
> Who would have to recreate them, and in what situations?
>
>  
If we are now wrapping the meta-data into the tarballs, someone must 
repackage them with that information correct?

>    * pull the pax file which contains the package and the metadata 
>    (relationships, install paths for stow, pre/post scripts??)
>    * the package gets dumped to packagefs which automagically creates the 
>    appropriate symlinks
>
> That might be more or less what I was suggesting.
>
>
>  
If I was more of a hacker, I'd start on stowfs today... :-(  Be that as 
it may, I want to read more into Alfred's suggestions and will get back 
shortly.

--
Barry deFreese
Debian 3.0r1 "Woody"
GNU/Hurd
Registered Linux "Newbie" #302256 - Hurd H4XX0r wannabe

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving
to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe
trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is
winning." Rich Cook.