Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: NetBSD System Packages (LONG)
To: Simon Burge <>
From: Jim Wise <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 09/30/1998 00:23:56

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
><>.  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...

- -- 
				Jim Wise

Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv