Re: Introduction
|--==> Darrin Thompson writes:
DT> First of all component dependencies are vaporware atm. When they exist,
DT> they will be high level.
DT> For instance, gnome needs x11. xorg-6.9 and xorg-7 might both be
DT> available and satisfy it.
DT> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't mostly confined to lsb
DT> module names. So there would be few of them.
DT> Clearly from the way I'm speculating this stuff is vapor.
Indeed I didn't get much of the point :)
Anyhow, from what I understand the idea would be to treat components a
bit as macro-packages, with their dependencies, provides and so
on. Otavio Salvador had a similar thinking when we were talking about
a very close topic during a CDD meeting in Castellon (who was there
might remember).
However I'm sure I'm fully happy with this, and I'd rather tend to
keep things as flat as possibly, relying directly on actual package
dependencies. Note that there already a few important "meta-packages"
in Debian, like "gnome", "gnome-core", "x-window-system", which are
perfectly functional. I don't think we need to much of them..
Maybe it would enough making pdk resolve the dependency of component
by simply checking if the a given dependency can be satisfied by the
packages provided by the other components the component depends on (if
any) or otherwise add the package to the component.
Of course all this could be done in a controllable way. Hope it's
clear enough..
>>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?
>>
DT> If you look a little closer you will see that they are a mix of sarge
DT> and etch.
Does this mean that the components should work with etch too?
Cheers,
Free
Reply to: