On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 09:57 AM, Just van Rossum wrote: > Jack Jansen wrote: > >> And Just said: >>> - I really dislike PackMan executing code from the .plist >> >> I can't think of any other way to make things truly extensible. > > I don't think PackMan needs to be extensible to such an extent. Am I > right that the current Python snippets only do version checks? Receipts > would work just as well, provided we limit version checking to packages > installed through PackMan. I think that's a reasonable constraint. No, receipts are specifically what I *don't* want. I want PackMan to do actual tests of what is available. The problem with receipts is that it causes a package manager to live in a completely self-centered world: it knows about everything it installed itself and nothing else. This means that if I'm an active developer on package X I always have to go out of my way, because the package manager doesn't know that I've built and installed it myself. I've come across this problem with Fink, SGI-inst and various other install managers. I want to build and install Python myself, and if someone reports a problem with package Y that depends on Python I want to use Fink to install Y, but let Y use my copy of Python (so I can test whether the bug has disappeared with my fix, let's assume for the discussion). This always turns out to be difficult without learning the internals of the package manager in question. -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen at cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4