Re: Just some thoughts

Quoting Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]>:
> Aschwin Marsman wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > > > What I would like to have is aap recipes for a lot of applications
> that
> > > > let my say:
> > > > aap --install <package> --version=stable|latest|..
> > > --delivery=binary|source|..
> > > > 
> > > > This would download all necessary software (include e.g. all
> > > > patches for vim if I specify latest), if needed build it and
> > > > install it.
> [...]
> 
> > > I think this is a very good plan.  What I have done with packages so far
> > > is only the first step.  With a few more features, such as selecting the
> > > stable/latest version, it quickly becomes very useful.
> > 
> > First we will have to agree to have a standard interface (read options)
> > that will be used. It can become very complex if you want to be able
> > to support all configurations. Maybe we should limit ourself, at least
> > for now, to a simple but extensible interface.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think we should indeed keep it simple.  For the version we mostly can
> use "stable" and "latest".  What this exactly means is up to the
> maintainer of the package.  For Vim I would use Vim 6.2 with patches
> that are known not to cause trouble for the stable release.  But for
> MS-Windows only the version 6.2 without patches is available.

So for UNIX-like systems stable & latest are the same for vim when 
using the source. For UNIX like systems also a binary package could 
be provided which doesn't always have the latest patches, because
somebody has to build them and make them available.

On Windows currently binary stable is vim 6.2 core, but for source
stable could be vim with all patches. 

> Main thing is that the user should not need to worry about this.  Let
> the maintainer take care of these decisions.

I agree. 

> > How to differ between delivery method? binary/source, but from where?
> > ftp, cvs, BK, svn, ... Or is this up to the package maintainer?
> 
> "The fastest method that works reliably".  Perhaps with a chance for the
> user to express what he wants.  I generally follow the rule that using a
> binary is much faster and often more reliable, but might have
> dependencies that you don't want.  Where to obtain it is to be decided
> by the package maintainer, perhaps the user can state a preference.  But
> this quickly conflicts with what is possible, thus let's leave this out
> for now.

Agreed, we would have an option delivery method with a certain default
which can be overruled by the user. A comma separated list comes to mind.

> > Let's try to quickly take some decisions before it gets to complicated.
> 
> For selecting the desired version:
> 
> 	aap --install pkgname VERSION=stable
> 	aap --install pkgname VERSION=latest
> 
> Where "stable" is the default.  It's possible that both versions are the
> same or that some packages offer more different versions.

OK. (Why do you prefer VERSION= i.s.o. --version=?)

> For selecting the method:
> 
> 	aap --install pkgname METHOD=bin
> 	aap --install pkgname METHOD=src
> 	aap --install pkgname "METHOD=bin src"
> 
> The last one is the default: use binary package when possible, source
> otherwise.  I'm not sure about the name "METHOD".  Is there something
> better?

Why not a comma separated list?

> Is that simple enough?

TRANSFER=ftp,cvs,svn,bk,rsync,scp?

> I think the real work is to figure out dependencies and make it work on
> many different systems.  Before bothering the user with more choices.

That can be the thing that aap can do what other systems don't do so well,
but it all depends on the availability of up-to-date recipes.

Have fun,

Aschwin Marsman

--
http://www.marsman.org              [email protected]


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf