[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More an autopackage

From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: More an autopackage
Date: 18 Jan 2001 21:03:06 -0700

>>>>> "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Wossum <address@hidden> writes:

Geoffrey> Anyway, here's some of my thoughts about it:
Geoffrey> 1) written in Python 

The required language flame war has already started.  However I think
the implementation language is the least important thing.  The
important thing is getting the design right; then it can be expressed
in any decent language.

Geoffrey> 3) I think the interface to it will be a file specifying the
Geoffrey> requirements for the package.  Files to include, where to
Geoffrey> install them, pre and post install scripts, etc.  At first,
Geoffrey> developers just write this file by hand.  Even this is a
Geoffrey> great improvement.  Then, automake gets modified to be able
Geoffrey> to automatically create this spec file.  (Is this a good
Geoffrey> idea?)

Automake can't create all of the spec file.  It doesn't have enough
information.  And, adding the information to does not make
sense (because it is global to a package, which really

Also, generating a list of files is not enough.  You also need pre-
and post- install and uninstall commands.

One way to get these is the *_INSTALL variables, which I talked about

Another important consideration, I think, is designing the interface
that represents the back end.  Doing this correctly will allow for
plugging in various different back ends.  There are probably 6 or 7
package implementations these days...

Geoffrey> 4) Is autopackage a good name?


Geoffrey> So I'll probably need some help with the packaging details.

There's lot of reading in your future...


reply via email to

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