[indiana-discuss] Brief (blogged) thoughts on packaging

[Jason J. W. Williams]

XML-based would be very nice. Even it were just an XML-build language
that generated the final package ala the WiX project for MSIs
(http://wix.sourceforge.net/). One of the nice things about using an
XML build language is integration with an automated build process.

It does seem to me that have an integrated package with installation
instructions and the binary data is preferable to two files. Easier to
distribute and less moving parts for the user.

Just my two cents.

-J

On 7/20/07, Mario Goebbels <me at tomservo.cc> wrote:
> On the same note, it would be nice if package generation would be easier as it is right now.
>
> In my ideal world, the package would consist out of an easy readable and editable XML file with:
> - Package identification (unique ID plus version number and architecture, hash of the package(s))
> - Copy instructions (which file/folder goes to what location/prefix, how to react on existing files)
> - Dependencies (by referring the package IDs, setting min, max versions and architecture)
> - Locations of repositories from where to fetch the package (that can be extended using a global list)
> - List of conditions (e.g. architecture constraints, requiring specific devices or ON features to be present)
> - List of prefixes and compiler flags to hammer pkg-config onto such a new system.
>
> And a tar.gz/bz2 carrying the actual binaries.
>
> Like this, a hobbyist developer can contribute to the whole effort. For instance, myself I'd prefer quickly writing some file and zipping up the dist directory of what I compiled than trying to make various tools working, that then hopefully spit out a package.
>
> My 2 cents.
> -mg
> --
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> indiana-discuss mailing list
> indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
>