Re: RFC: implementation of package pools
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > Yes, but isn't the idea to provide automated tools that will require
> > minimal manual intervention? I guess tools can check for consistency or
>
> We already have such tools, but they cannot be 100% effective no matter
> how perfect you make them.
>
I don't understand this. :) That's what tools are good for, being
100% effective. We're not talking about group psychology here! It's
a computing matter that can be specified and solved 100%. binutils
are examples to some very good tools. But perhaps I'm underestimating
your hacking skills, and you might be going right into the heart
of binary file formats with naked eye. [Only the tool developers need
to do that!!]
> > Well, a tool can run a hashing function. Once the tools are stabilized,
> > they will have no problems.
>
> Complicating things like this only increases the chance an error will be
> made during some king of critical intervention operation.
>
But you don't manually intervene ld.so.cache, or do you?
> > A supporting argument: I'm using apt-cache search, or apt-get but avoiding
> > manipulation of apt or dpkg databases manually. Because I have reliable
> > automated tools.
>
> Yet dpkg still exists, and the files are indeed stored in a text
> format. Guess why?
Yea, but if I can write a robust re-implementation of dpkg that's
at least as reliable as the text-based one, and which has enough
utilities that make it as convenient as editing text files with
a normal editor.. then i'd think it ought to replace dpkg, right? just
an idea :) [but if you turn this to a test of skill, i will do
it! ;)]
I see the typical unix approach here. You know, make everything
as simple as possible, so that it works to some extent. Then it
can remain that way, although it's inefficient, lacking or
annoying. I guess I represent the MIT approach here. ;) Though
I'm not associated with MIT in any intimate manner :) Note that.
> > BTW, I really want to pack together:
>
> This is already done or being done.
>
Okay, where is the ITP for it? I don't see an ITP for these,
please tell the person who's planning to do this issue
a formal ITP for dinstall and dinstall-utils or whatever
packages, and then everybody can be informed in the proper
way! [i.e, I would engage in packaging these tools, and there
would be duplication of effort.] I've checked the WNPP page
and there seems to be no ITP relating to dinstall.
Cheers,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: