Re: Package management

[Stefan Urbanek]

On 2004-03-02 05:13:54 +0100 Adam Fedor <fedor@doc.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 02:22 PM, Stefan Urbanek wrote:
>
> > As noone picks which functions (and which algorithms) he wants in his libc, 
> > we can do similar at higher level with libraries, tools ,apps and 
> > frameworks. Bundle them in larger packages. Of course, keeping advanced 
> > users in mind. Even NeXT used large packages, so in GNUstep we can have, 
> > for example, packages like: Base, Environment, Development, 
> > DatabaseDevelopment, WebDevelopment, Communication, Office, Scripting, ...
>
> Well, I like to work with existing packaging systems, since they are 
> generally more mature and more accepted. But I like the idea of large 
> packages on a meta level - perhaps where the Package Manager only distributes 
> and/or installs package sets that are known compatible.

Of course, if there is a solution for package management, we should reuse it. In adition 
we have to move further. So for example in some GNUstep distribution (either as 
standalone OS or host environment) there will be kind of package installer using .debs 
(or .rpms). Only difference will be, that those .debs will contain more than single 
library/application. And smaller number of packages is more maintainable. I have 903 
packages at this time on my system, where i think it will be sufficient to have ~10-15 
larger packages. Whether those packages are ordinary or kind of metapackages is not 
relevant if the only thing that user can see, is confronted with and manages are those 
larger "meta" packages.

As for single frameworks and apps for special needs of developers: advantage of 
gnustep is that you can  download My.app-i386.tar.gz and unpack it into 
/Local/Applications/ directory.

Stefan
--
http://stefan.agentfarms.net

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you 
win.
- Mahatma Gandhi