[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pkg_add and remote packages
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:05:51PM -0400, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> Dieter Baron wrote:
>> In article <47F68F28.7060006%pkgsrc.org@localhost> Johnny wrote:
>> That's nice, but the problem Joerg ran into also happens for single
>> package installs with specified version: finding out about missing
>> dependencies. How does ruby gems handle that?
> The YAML file includes all of the dependency information for each gem, so
> you can determine what's needed without needing to fetch or inspect the gem
> itself. I feel this is the right thing to do in pkg_summary if we don't
> already do this.
pkg_summary also contains that information.
However, you said:
>> : If you ask the "gem" tool to install a particular remote gem by name :
>> *and* version, then it grabs it directly from the gems directory. :
What if the gem depends on other gems? Can gems be installed out of
>> : Perhaps a binary package should consist of two files in the package :
>> : packages/foo-1.0.tar.gz
>> : packages/foo-1.0.pkg_summary
>> : These two files can be generated automatically by "make package". Then
>> : to create the "global" pkg_summary file, you just concatentate all of :
>> the *.pkg_summary files together.
>> Hm, that would make it easier to update pkg_summary. And it would
>> eliminate the need to download the whole thing for just installing one
>> package: download the *.pkg_summary file and you have the list of
>> However, it would clutter up the package repository significantly.
>> I'm undecided wether I think it's worthwhile.
> It would double the number of files in the repository. Still, it's worth
> considering if it makes remote repositories more useful. We could install
> the *.pkg_summary files into a parallel directory, e.g.
> packages/summaries/foo-1.0 if that's any better.
Yes, it's worth considering.
Main Index |
Thread Index |