>all our needs.  I just want packages and a way to manage them, it
>needs not be rpkg. :-)

Hehe :)  As said, I do not use Windows, so I 1) do not know what is
difficult, 2) will not try to compile anything for it.

>There should be no problem in changing to those.  The only issue would
>be that we could not adopt revision numbers:
>packagename_ve_rs_ion-rev_arch.rpk is rather computer parsable,
>packagename-ve-rs-ion-rev-arch.rpk makes it hard to know whether there
>is a revision number somewhere or not.

I had package-name_ve-rs-ion-rev_arch.rpk in mind

>> That is another way of making two different versions. It implies
>> Depends: ruby1.7  instead of  Depends: ruby (>=1.7:2)
>                                                     ^
>Do you know what is this for?

I was just showing where the 1.7 moved; but to distinguish between
1.7.1 and 1.7.2, you would need the `2' somewhere.

>> A small database can definitely be a choice. ipkg uses a database
>> that is quite similar to dpkgs, but since it contains hundred packages
>> instead of thousands, it is a lot smaller.
>
>Has it got stripped down info texts for packages or are they full
>infos, just less of them?

I think primarily less of them. Fields like Suggests and Recommends
are not implemented.

Various ppl have built their own ``feed'', resulting in various small
databases on my iPAQ, but only of those parts that interest me.
I should think about this and post this to the ipkg ppl instead :)

Bye,
Kero.

PS: I'm gone for a week now. Keep up the good disussion/work.

+--- Kero ------------------------------ kero / chello.nl ---+
|  Don't split your mentality without thinking twice       |
|                          Proud like a God -- Guano Apes  |
+--- M38c ------- http://members.chello.nl/~k.vangelder ---+