| 1 |
John Nilsson said: |
| 2 |
> I meant for upstream developers. So instead of ./README or ./INSTALL |
| 3 |
> stating dependencies ./METADATA.xml or what have you. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> A package should provide a uri interface to this information so that |
| 6 |
> webservices for dependency resolving can be created. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Make portage more of a webservice... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> -John |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
there is already such projects i think, althought not from source. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
there was a discusion on this list, i think you can search the archives, |
| 16 |
about using a xml-based YaST and tring to convince all upstream developers |
| 17 |
to use a standard xml configuration file. this sorta seems as hopeless as |
| 18 |
that, unless you can generate the ones your talking about from ./configure |
| 19 |
scripts. also, i dont get what portage has to do with webservice, what |
| 20 |
your describing seems a bit like having metadata about each package and |
| 21 |
just downloading the ebuilds and everything from a web server, which |
| 22 |
1. puts more load on the servers then having a local tree |
| 23 |
2. makes it harder to modify ebuillds |
| 24 |
3. makes no sense as it would not improve the current system in anyway |
| 25 |
that i can see |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
no offense, but it seems to me like you've just read a book on web |
| 28 |
services or something, and would like to have everything take advantage |
| 29 |
of such technology, but portage was never designed to be like that, and if |
| 30 |
you think it can be, then just remember: code speaks louder then words :P |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Joe Booker |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives