Re: Package format/management ramblingss

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   I only wonder if we should implement the unionfs features directly
   in our translator, that is why I got confused a bit.

The best way would be if unionfs provided a library that the package
translator could use.

   By the way: I wonder if and how we should provide other versions of
   packages separately as described in my initial posting, such as:

   /bin/emacs-20 -> /packages/emacs-20/bin/emacs

I belive it was rms that suggested the following syntax:

/bin/address@hidden -> /packages/emacs-21.3/bin/emacs
/bin/emacs -> /packages/emacs-19.1/bin/emacs

Dashes shouldn't be used in either case, would cause way to many
headaches.

   The problem is that one would have to configure all the programs to
   expect a version number after their configuration and data
   files/directories, even in user directory. 

If that is the case we can always fix the program to work correctly.
By accessing the file "address@hidden" or somesuch instead.

   /share/pixmaps/foo.xpm-21 -> /packages/emacs-21/share/pixmaps/foo.xpm
   (Maybe foo-21.xpm would be better.)

It wouldn't, consider the case where you have a real file called
"foo-21.xpm", then a file called "foo.xpm".  Which file would be
accessed if one accesses /share/pixmaps/foo-21.xpm?  The same applies
for foo.xpm-21 and any other combination.  Dashes are a weak way to
delimit versions; the suggestion that will probobly be used it the one
I wrote about above.

   Which package is allowed to put files where?

A package is _only_ allowed to put files in /packages/PACKAGE.  It is
a package after all.

   Should we allow other packages to put files in /share/emacs?

No package will put files in /share/emacs, that directory is a virtual
one.  /share/emacs would be the union of /packages/*/share/emacs.


Happy hacking.