Re: Introduction
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 15:58 +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
> Having maintained a couple of CDDs [0] for a while I've gained a bit
> of knowledge of the problems of creating and (especially) maintaining
> custom distributions, and let me say that the overall philosophy and
> designed behind PDK is quite appealing. I would say that you really
> got to the point.
>
Thanks! That's a wonderful complement! I'm glad you've poked at it.
> If this is correct, it would be quite laborious to create new
> components.. I admit that when I first run pdk resolve on a test
> component I thought that I would have gotten some automatic guessing
> of the dependencies.
>
> Note also that sometimes the dependencies of package change (for
> example for a compiler transition, e.g. libfoo1 -> libfoo1c), is the
> maintainer of a component supposed to manually change the component
> accordingly? If so we'd need a command capable to do that
> automatically and to report what has changed.
>
> What is the proper way of proceeding here?
>
First of all component dependencies are vaporware atm. When they exist,
they will be high level.
For instance, gnome needs x11. xorg-6.9 and xorg-7 might both be
available and satisfy it.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't mostly confined to lsb
module names. So there would be few of them.
Clearly from the way I'm speculating this stuff is vapor.
> Anther issue is that AFAICS all the components published here:
>
> http://apt-devel.componentizedlinux.org/linux/cl/progeny.com/
>
> are made for sarge. Are you maintaining there some in flux components
> following etch?
>
If you look a little closer you will see that they are a mix of sarge
and etch.
--
Darrin
Reply to: