|
From: | Søren Hauberg |
Subject: | Re: packaging system |
Date: | Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:26:14 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404) |
John W. Eaton wrote: [snip]
My main problem is that I want to avoid having to do too much book-keeping. If we want to implement theHmm. It does to me. If we implement dependencies in the package system, then there is nothing preventing you from installing a package that doesn't actually have any files of its own, but depends on several other packages. If you'd like, you can call your dependency-only package a "toolbox". I see no reason to complicate things by introducing the concept of a "toolbox" as something that is somehow different from a "package". It seems to me that both are just collections of functions.
help("toolboxname")functionality, we have a problem with the "empty package" with many dependencies. With out any special book-keeping the above help function wouldn't present any functions since the toolbox doesn't provide any functions.
Introducing a toolbox field in DESCRIPTION doesn't make sense to as the package would then need to know which packages depends on it.
The way I see things there are two options 1) Don't do toolboxes at all.2) Start doing book-keeping. That is, introduce a some sort of graph structure to keep track of dependencies.
Neither of these solutions appeal to me :-(BTW, I'm having some problems with expressing myself since I'm a bit hung over from last night. So, if I'm not making any sense just tell me ...
/Søren
jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |