| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:27 pm Post subject: Package Manager - thinking a new design outside specs!! |
 |
|
I would like to know what are the main components of the package manager? Can you describe the package manager globally?
I would like to transform the package manager like the original poster. This is a personal project.
Last edited by Mr. T. on Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54703
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
helecho,
The requirements are fully described in the Package Manager Specification.
How you implement that is up to you.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skellr
l33t
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 988
Location: The Village, Portmeirion
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NG? NG takes me back to 1987.
I feel a face stabbing coming on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to modify the architecture of the package manager. Therefore, changes will be formally incorrect related to the specification.
My request may be unfounded!! In my mind, it is to perceive concepts associated to the package manager and reuse some mechanisms.
I would like to transform the ebuild tree, create a different interface, transform an ebuild (remove Bash, merge eclasses, ...), remove configuration files ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54703
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
helecho,
That sounds like it will take several lifetimes.
There are already several different architectures of package manager. Portage, Pkgcore and Plaudis all solve the same problem in different ways.
The Package Manager Specification tells what is required, it says nothing of possible architectures that might result in a compliant Package Manager.
By definition, package managers that do not comply with the Package Manager Specification have bugs.
The Package Manager Specification is a minimum requirement. Implementations may contain extra features that are not required but any extra features cannot be used in the gentoo repo until the Package Manager Specification has been updated to require them.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm beginning to wonder if the message being replied to here is from the same person. They have a lot in common.
In any case, the reply is good enough for this subthread.
Last edited by Ant P. on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20578
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| helecho wrote: | I would like to know what are the main components of the package manager? Can you describe the package manager globally?
I would like to transform the package manager like the original poster. This is a personal project. |
@helecho,
As I mentioned in your other thread... | pjp wrote: | | Split from the 2014 thread as this is a new effort and not directly related to the events from 4 years ago. |
Please stop necroposting.
Thank you,
--pjp
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
@pjp: It seemed right to refer to the appropriate threads. Others before me tried to change the package manager and their reflection can be useful.
Finally, my reflections do not have to be necessarily related to Portage or the package manager specification.
NeddySeagoon, I disagree. The adaptation of software is a value adopted by free software developers: you are free to change the program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54703
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
helecho,
| helecho wrote: | | NeddySeagoon, I disagree. The adaptation of software is a value adopted by free software developers: you are free to change the program. |
Agreed, that's mostly why we are all here. Go ahead and do it, there is no need to ask.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| @NeddySeagoon: it's OK! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10692
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| helecho wrote: | | I would like to modify the architecture of the package manager. Therefore, changes will be formally incorrect related to the specification. |
Well, not necessarily. But, even so, surely the whole content of the PMS isn't useless to you. For one early example, consider sections 3.2 (Version Specifications) and 3.3 (Version Comparison). These sections tell the package manager what form that package versions may take and how to unambiguously compare those versions. This is largely an experience-based codification of how other projects have created package versions historically. It's not Portage specific domain knowledge at all: instead, it's a well thought out description of the way the world is.
Similar comments can be made about the dependency specification language (Chapter 8). There essentially has to be a way of codifying dependencies. Even if you dislike the form that the current specification language takes, the PMS documents the types of dependencies that must be represented. (Admittedly there's some room for debate there about certain types and the trouble they've caused.)
So even if you're thinking about creating a fundamentally incompatible package manager (in the common vernacular, a hard fork), you'd be well served to study the PMS. Also, like all good open source projects, the PMS source code is readily available and can be modified by you.
If you want to take a look at the PMS, Portage makes something complex trivially easy  :- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10692
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| helecho wrote: | | @pjp: It seemed right to refer to the appropriate threads. Others before me tried to change the package manager and their reflection can be useful. |
I agree: it's right but not proper. The proper way to refer to those old threads is with a [topic=] link, like this: Portage-NG: brainstorming. We have a longstanding policy against resurrecting excessively old threads which, hmm, I see is not currently reflected in the Guidelines. Sorry; will have to do something about that.
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. T.
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 477
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham, thank you for your feedback! I will eventually exploit the specification after establishing a template to avoid mixing ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
