Re: GNUstep repository (was LinuxSTEP + Integration of apps)

[Mayuresh Kathe]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Tim Harrison wrote:

> Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>
> > Agreed, but both approaches have two major components in common, i.e. The
> > Linux Kernel and the GNUStep environment :)
> > What would be required is channelizing energies towards a single distro...
>
> GNUstep, nor the Linux kernel, do not an operating environment make.

There goes Yoda ;)

> Once you're past those two similarities, you then have to deal with
> everything else.

The most important I have felt is the fantastic way you've laid out your
file system...


> The OpenStep Specification didn't actually specify anything regarding
> filesystem hierarchy, IIRC. :)

But, OPENSTEP and now MacOS X did lay out files similarly, didn't it?


> I don't see too many types of package management systems.  The way I see
> it, the primary three are RPM, DEB, and TGZ.  Beyond that, there're
> things like Portage.

I guess four are three more than one on systems like BSD...
:)


> The thing is, package management does not stop at package format.  It
> goes into how to add, remove, and maintain that package once it is on
> your system.  THAT is where the problems lie.  Anyone who's been stuck
> in RPM dependency hell is all too familiar with this.

Frankly, if we adopt the slow, steady release style of BSD, we won't have
the hassles of dependency checks as in the mess created with RH.


> One of our goals is to be able to use the installation CD as a recovery
> disk, with a live system on it.  So, we need a small live system, and
> the installation files.  With careful design, good compression, and
> smart choices, one could fit everything neatly into one ISO.  It could
> be a tight fit, but that's where it becomes necessary to decide what is
> required for a live rescue system.  Mac OS is an excellent example of a
> good setup.

True, absolutely required, probably even the first install could be made
completely graphical, a la MacOS Classic style :)


> This almost sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen.  Plus, there's
> also the potential for unmaintained, old versions of dead projects'
> software remaining there, and generally becoming a place full of
> questionable use.

Not really, those cooks would work only in their own cabinets/cabins :)

There could be a mechanism which allows a developer to mark his code as
DP, RC or Stable grade and some script could build binaries and lay them
out accordingly for download.
That way, there could be a GUI app which lets a user upgrade his system or
add new apps at the click of a button :)


> Honestly, I'd much rather see a snippet of a script available from, say,
> gnustep.org, which you can put on your web server, which would submit
> your link back to, say, gnustep.net, with your project name, download
> link, etc.  When you update something, run the script, and it submits
> the new info.  Just a rough thought.  But central repositories for so
> many different things could become a nightmare to maintain.

I guess thats what I meant above, only a bit more elegant as the central
repository holds code (write permissions only to the developers) and
binaries (write permission only to a script on the server).

Imagine the potential of such a cleanly laid out system...
(dunno if any other project has such a thing)

~Mayuresh