On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 07:23:08AM +0900, Sean Russell wrote:
> Ok, so this is what I'm thinking.  Give me access to your sources, and I'll 
> see if I can provide some code, rather than making you do everything:
> 
> I want the following features in a distribution mechanism:
> 
> 1) The distribution spec completely disassociated from the source tarball.  As 
> we've talked about, this means that I can build a spec for, say, Dave Thomas' 
> rdoc without Dave knowing that his software is being downloaded and installed 
> by rpkg.
> 2) As much introspection on the install as possible.  When the distribution 
> spec is by neccessity large and complex, people don't write them.
> 3) Support for both precompiled and source archives
> 4) Patching support
> 5) CVS support
> 
> In as much as it is possible, offload all of the work of compiling and 
> installing onto the package -- it should know best how to compile and install 
> itself.  The distribution mechanism should just know how to fetch the 
> package, calculate dependancies, tell the package to compile and install 
> itself, and manage resources on the client side (tracking installed files and 
> so on).
> 
> (1) and (2) are important because practically, they greatly simplify writing 
> distribution specs.  (3) is, well, core functionality.  (4) is important 
> because it allows third parties to provide improvements to the standard 
> distribution.  (5) is important for terse downloads.
> 
> Are these goals achievable within the framework of rpkg?

(1) (2) and (3) won't put anything upside down.  I'm not sure about
what you mean by (4), i.e. patching of installed files?  For (5), I'd
take the road of making rpkg totally ignorant about where the package
are coming from, and have it talk to pluggable back-ends managers with
a uniform interface.  Then, adding rsync or CVS is just a matter of
writing the appropriate back-end.

I agree with about everything you propose, and I add (6) the ability
to handle multiple unrelated package bases.

I'll send you the `devel' code of rpkg.  It's quite dirty and (worst)
it has few tests, but when I started I didn't know better. :-( New
code (version and archive files handling) has full test suites.

Massimiliano