[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Source packages for documentation (was Re: Next approach)

> Christian Schwarz writes:
>  > If I may summarize it: You suggest to "mix" our current source packages
>  > with binary packages since you consider the terms "source" and "binary"
>  > inaccurate. Thus, we would gain "source package dependencies"
>  > automatically, etc., and it would also make all "binary-arch" directories
>  > obsolete. Every "package" would depend on the necessary "vm's". 

Yann Dirson: 
>  > > It's certainly not ready to be applied right now, as we don't have the
>  > > necessary tools, but it should be seen as a medium-term proposal.

CS again:
>  > This is surely a _very_ systematic approach! But what are the benefits
>  > from it?

> * as you said, source-package dependencies.
> * easy access to source packages (see my reply to Raul on Jul 3 for
>   why I consider that very useful).
> * About docs, this would allow the sysadmins to choose what format
>   they will install, depending on their needs; this would solve the
>   problems about man/catman, texi/info/html/ps, and such.
> * choosing the way multi-step conversions are done (eg. sdc used to
>   (and maybe still does, I don't really know) do sgml->ascii
>   conversion via lout. People who do not want to waste disk-space with
>   lout could just use groff as a second converter.
> * this would make more accurate dependency control-field, by using the
>   transitive constructs I describe (about converters and VMs), though
>   this scheme could probably be applied to current package-scheme, by
>   extending the virtual-package feature.

Wow!  This sounds like what I was discussing before when I was 
discussing reforming the source packaging system - but extended to 
solve documentation source format problems (with multiple stages of
compiling and linking).

This is definitely where we should head.  Exciting stuff.  Revolutionary
even.  I'm glad I saw this, since I skipped the original thread.  (the
discussion here is out of control!)

If a few little hacks to the packaging system is all that is needed
to do all this wild stuff, I say let's do it.  :-)

Maybe I should summarize in different language, to see if other
people understand the concept as I understand it:

1)  we have one single packaging format - this format can hold
    binaries (architecture specific or not), upstream sources, 
    debian-specific patches fully rendered documentation (ie. info 
    files, HTML files, postscript files, etc.), intermediately-rendered
    documentation (ie. texi)

    What is inside a package would be determined by a field in the
    control file for the package.  These files could have different
    filename extensions and be placed in different directories on
    the FTP sites depending on their contents - but the packaging
    system wouldn't care what they were.

2)  The packaging system (dpkg) would be able to install any of these
    packages, and handle dependencies.

3)  The relationships between source packages and derived (ie. binary)
    packages would be defined in some sort of a "map".


      upstream source packages
      "debian" patches package
          +-----> "virtual machine" binary package
          |            (ie. Java bytecode, Win32 i386 code)
          |                  |
          |                  v
          +-----> architecture specific binary package
          |        (ie. i386, alpha, sparc, ppc, m68k, gnu-win32-i386)
          +-----> intermediate documentation package
          |           (ie. texi, man pages)
          |                 |
          |                 v
          +-----> final documentation package
                    (ie. compiled man pages, info files,
                          HTML pages)

4)  Converters can be provided that will convert packages
    in a "source" state into packages in a "binary" state
      - but there might be multiple stages

    I'm using the terms "source" and "binary" loosely - and
    there might be multiple conversion steps involved.  I
    also use the term "compile" loosely to signify the 
    transition between states.
5)  The packaging system (or perhaps a new subsystem) can handle
    conversion from the source state to the binary states.

    It would also be able to do this on a delayed basis.  ie.
    A person could download all the "intermediate documentation
    packages" that consisted of man page sources.  When they
    want to look at the man pages, the packaging system would
    kick in the appropriate converter (groff, or perhaps man2html) 
    to create the rendered version.  The rendered versions could
    then be cached.  

    Alternatively, the person could choose to
    download the pre-rendered final version off of the internet
    (or a locally mirror site) instead.  The system could use
    heuristics (rules of thumb) based on cost and system 
    performance to automatically decide whether or not to compile 
    the docs (or binary) locally, or to download them.  

    [ I'm a control systems engineer, and I smell some potentially
      linearizable relationships...   :-)  ]

    This also works really slick for compiled packages - the
    person might be doing a "port" to a strange architecture
    (ie. GNU-Win32), so they could simply choose the source
    packages, and attempt to convert them to binary packages.
    If they were successful, they could upload the binary
    packages, so that others participating in the "port" don't
    have to go through the compilation step.

    It could also provide a global cache for JVM based code
    such as Java code.  Java code can be compiled to machine
    specific code using tools such as "toba", and soon "gcc".
    Running pre-compiled Java code is going to be faster
    than using a JIT like "kaffe" (since there is no
    compilation step).  But this cuts down on the portability.
    If we had a system such as this, then the user could
    use the architecture specific binary package if it was
    available, or use the "JVM" binary package instead.

    One can even imagine "on-the-fly" conversion servers that
    could do compilation remotely, and deliver compiled
    packages on demand.

    So we could build a solution which always optimizes between
    bandwidth and computing power.  That's revolutionary.

6)  It would even be possible to define conversions between
    states, skipping intermidiate representations.  This could
    lead to some serious potential for optimizations.

I could go on - this is a really exciting idea!!!

(anyone else think this is cool?  or am I out in outer space


 - Jim

Attachment: pgpO0OlATWtUP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: