Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: NetBSD System Packages (LONG)
To: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jim Wise <email@example.com>
Date: 09/30/1998 00:23:56
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Simon Burge wrote:
>Good stuff. I don't know if this has been talked about on tech-pkg in
>the past - I've only just subscribed to that list today. However, on
>tech-install I sent the basis of a proposal for sysinst to deal with
>set installation which could be changed to deal with system package
>installation. (Well, it's pretty much two different names for the
>same idea). That message was on September 18, with a message id of
><199809180703.RAA18374@balrog.supp.cpr.itg.telecom.com.au>. If we can
>get your proposal working cleanly with sysinst (which was my goal) then
>everyone will be better off.
<G> This message is actually one of the places where I got the idea of
the set file containing a contents file of some sort.
It is definitely my hope that sysinst will eventually be modified to
grok package sets, and allow users to choose either at a set or an
individual package granularity. There have been a couple of proposals
floated that sysinst be extended to do more system maintenance tasks
after the system is up and running, and adding and removing system (and
third-party) packages is one big thing which could be added.
>I think we'd still need an overall summary file of all packages with
>similar information in my message (size and dependancies) - the
>difficulty would be generating that. Maybe this can easily be done by
>looking at the +CONTENTS file of each binary package, but I don't know
>much at all about the internals of binary packages and how dependancies
>are handled to know what's possible and what's not.
I think the set contents file should only contain information that can
be automagically gathered from each package's pkg/* files...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----