RE: [Lsb-CommonPackaging] Re: extension of lsb packages
On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> So to say, "all we need to do is to specify an API", and like pixie dust,
> expect that all of the hard problems of packaging will just magically
> disappear, is a bit naive.
> Yes, I know it is incredibly naive. But I fail to see how, using my
> solution, it's going to be *harder* to solve than using the current
> mechanism. The solutions we come up with here will carry over.
> And all I'm trying to do is abstract the interface between the installer and
> the package database, which means we can work out a common subset between
> the main packagers, and seek to build on it. At present, I feel all this
> debate is having a seriously stifling effect on package management
> development, and if we start codifying things the way they are, things are
> going to get worse.
I think that you're both right, and that the problem needs to be restated
more clearly. Simply defining the semantics required of a package and
providing a tools that implementes it is somewhat limiting. Simply defining
and API without the semantics doesn't solve the whole problem. What we really
need, is to design multiple layers, starting with the DB at the bottom,
providing an API above it, and code/API for reading in the package format,
and then providing the simple command line tool. Additional GUI tools
can be built on top of the APIs.
> I make my living programming the damn things. And the way the
> package databases are managed just feels horribly "inelegant".
I think you've hit upon an important point here.
Metro Link, Inc. Free Standards Group
Linux Standards Base