| 1 |
On 16 Dec 2003, at 23:23, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, knowledge base makes me think of logic, so settings repository |
| 4 |
> might be |
| 5 |
> even a better word. It could however also be that I had too many |
| 6 |
> encounters |
| 7 |
> with logicians. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
"settings" is a bit too concrete imho: My view is that an ebuild (or a |
| 10 |
port file in general) defines possible settings for some system |
| 11 |
component(s). It is the reasoning systems task to use that knowledge to |
| 12 |
come up with a system consisting of components with a specification |
| 13 |
(=setting) that satisfies the users needs, constraints ... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
'metadata repository', 'configuration knowledge' are two other |
| 16 |
posibilities that come to mind. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> My idea is basically that there is a structure with embedded |
| 19 |
> shellscripts. |
| 20 |
> This way we don't need bash for the metadata, only for actual |
| 21 |
> unpacking, |
| 22 |
> configuring, compiling and installing |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
indeed, good idea |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>> I certainly wouldn't exclude using a database (like in sql databases, |
| 27 |
>> etc.), but wouldn't exclude other possibilities too. If anyone wants |
| 28 |
>> to |
| 29 |
>> create one huge file containing all data in his own syntax, that |
| 30 |
>> should |
| 31 |
>> be possible because of the modular design. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Me neither, it should be an option however. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
yep |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Pieter |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives