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

Re: Packaging stuff

* Stuart Anderson (anderson@metrolink.com) [001024 18:01]:
> Do you (and Nick) mean a C library with programming interfaces? 

I'm not.  I'm talking about a documented procedural
approach, or what I've called a protocol.  In other words,
"Here's the first step you must take before attempting to
install an application.  Here's how you search for the
dependencies within the file system.  Here's the convention
you need to use for naming and versioning files so that the
search is reliable.  Here's how to query the database. 
Here's the convention for versioning and names for the
database so that the search is successful.  Here's how to
update the database when you cannot rely on the version
being reflected by the file name...etc."

Please don't hold me to the above, it's just an example off
the top of my head to illustrate how I'm thinking.  If you
want to take the above and build a C API around it, that
would be wonderful! 

But if the above is defined and well thought out, you could
recreate the system in any language.  The only part of this
system that might be tricky is the database.  And as I said
elsewhere, if the RPM database would serve, then fine - I'm
not advocating starting from scratch if we don't have to.
I'm simply advocating that we do it right.  

Finally, let me make one more thing very clear - I'm not
limiting my viewpoint to the extremely narrow perspective
of what LSB 1.0 is likely to cover.  We'd be ostriches if
we think that people are only going to build applications
that ONLY use those things defined in LSB 1.0.  Let's get
real and address installation from a more global
perspective so we can solve the problem of
incompatibilities across versions properly.


Nicholas Petreley   Caldera Systems - LinuxWorld/InfoWorld
nicholas@petreley.com - http://www.petreley.com - Eph 6:12

Reply to: