Re: features, modules and packages

[Alex Shinn]

>>>>> "Thi" == Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> writes:

    Thi> i think if you are able to distinguish the thing from labels of
    Thi> the thing, you will see that "feature" and "version" have the
    Thi> same feel, which explains my puzzlement at why you're not
    Thi> expressing your ideas in code, instead of ignoring the general
    Thi> tools recently posted.

I don't often code OSS during the week (and never at work).  Instead I
like to take the time to reflect and plan out what to work on over the
weekend.  Code is good but so is discussion.

But this discussion isn't helping much and I think see now where the
communication is breaking down.  You're talking in terms of building the
packages, for which you are building a set of tools using autoconf.  I'm
talking in terms of a tool to install those packages.  We need to know
the dependencies before we start the install process.  The build
dependencies and the pre-installation dependencies are two different
things.

I know where I want to go with gumm next, apart from the obvious of
breaking it into proper modules and creating a separate command script.
I want it to look at the package dependencies (read from a sexp-based
package list, no autoconf involved though autoconf may autogen it) and
download the other packages needed.  And I was assuming I'd use
version-based dependencies because that's what all the other package
managers I've ever seen use, and it works very well for them.

If you disagree with this approach then I'm open to convincing
otherwise, but it is very unclear to me how to map features to module
versions.  And it seems like breaking from a well-trodden path without
good reason.

-- 
Alex