Re: GNUstep repository (was LinuxSTEP + Integration of apps)

[Tim Harrison]

Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

> Agreed, but both approaches have two major components in common, i.e. The
> Linux Kernel and the GNUStep environment :)
> What would be required is channelizing energies towards a single distro...

GNUstep, nor the Linux kernel, do not an operating environment make. 
Once you're past those two similarities, you then have to deal with 
everything else.

> why /lib?
> The OpenStep specs laid out files differently from standard Unix.
> So why shouldn't a distro targeted towards the same use a similar FSH?

The OpenStep Specification didn't actually specify anything regarding 
filesystem hierarchy, IIRC. :)

> One of the problems I have understood with standard Unix based distro
> deliverables is that there are standards (too many of them ;) to choose
> from...
> If we know what we are delivering then package management becomes very
> easy...
> Infact, you could check out Crux (http://www.crux.nu/), they use simple
> .tgz based packages.

I don't see too many types of package management systems.  The way I see 
it, the primary three are RPM, DEB, and TGZ.  Beyond that, there're 
things like Portage.

The thing is, package management does not stop at package format.  It 
goes into how to add, remove, and maintain that package once it is on 
your system.  THAT is where the problems lie.  Anyone who's been stuck 
in RPM dependency hell is all too familiar with this.

> Why a live system? Why not a installable?
> Dunno, but I guess with todays 700Mb CDs, it would be possible to deliver
> both a live system as well as installables...

One of our goals is to be able to use the installation CD as a recovery 
disk, with a live system on it.  So, we need a small live system, and 
the installation files.  With careful design, good compression, and 
smart choices, one could fit everything neatly into one ISO.  It could 
be a tight fit, but that's where it becomes necessary to decide what is 
required for a live rescue system.  Mac OS is an excellent example of a 
good setup.

> Server would probably be required for creating a central repository, that
> which could hold the source for *all* GNUStep related stuff (base system,
> library extensions, apps, misc stuff) in one place and people could use a
> ports/CVS/rsync/<anyother_sync_app> to update their sources/binaries by
> running a simple command or clicking a button in a GUI app...

This almost sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen.  Plus, there's 
also the potential for unmaintained, old versions of dead projects' 
software remaining there, and generally becoming a place full of 
questionable use.

Honestly, I'd much rather see a snippet of a script available from, say, 
gnustep.org, which you can put on your web server, which would submit 
your link back to, say, gnustep.net, with your project name, download 
link, etc.  When you update something, run the script, and it submits 
the new info.  Just a rough thought.  But central repositories for so 
many different things could become a nightmare to maintain.




--

Tim Harrison
tim@linuxstep.org
http://www.linuxstep.org/