[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Package format/management ramblingss
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Package format/management ramblingss |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jul 2004 22:57:22 -0400 |
Your attempt is to make different versions generally not conflict --
completely different to existing package managing systems -- and link
the system-wide preference to a file name which not contains the
version number. Right?
Yes. And also provide a way to run the non-preferred package.
And, as far as I can see, it would not even necessarily require the
Hurd to work on.
It depends on automatically constructing the contents of /bin, /etc,
and various other directories and files. It may be hard to get this
to work without the Hurd.
> Do you mean something like /package/foo -> /disk/foo-$foover? Then
> you would set configuration variable foover to either a or b? That
> could be a good feature. We could combine the two by using $ in the
> symlink's name, too: /package/address@hidden -> /disk/foo-a, for
> instance.
Am I right this is similar to the case above, but with real shell
variables?
I am talking about the specs of the interface. Whether they would
be *implemented* with shell variables, I don't know, but I doubt it.
You are in a kind of chroot environment and have the directory /disk
which contains the directory tree of the system.
You merge /disk/bin, /disk/sbin and /disk/home/<user>/bin to /bin,
which you have full access to in your environment.
I am not talking about a single user's chroot environment. I am
talking about configuring the *whole system*'s default environment.
However, having some sort of per-user customizability might be nice
too. Each user could have a package subdir of his home dir.
You're talking about "merging" where as I have in mind virtual
construction of various dirs and files. Perhaps this is a scheme for
implementing something on GNU/Linux.
You regard a conflict where two packages provide the same file?
Yes. Is there some other kind?
In the case of directories, I would not consider a conflict fatal. If,
regarding the case above, /disk/cdrom/share/foo and
/disk/home/<user>/share/foo provide the same file, just prefer the
CD-ROM because you have included it to get some additional data that is
not found in your installation.
I don't follow, I am not sure what case you are talking about here.