Re: BAD: Handling of package-index by package release and install system
|--==> "APA" == Adrian Aichner <Adrian.Aichner(a)t-online.de> writes:
APA> Hello All, Hello Steve,
APA> many of you must be experiencing the same problems.
Not if you're careful.
APA> I had long wanted to write about the breakage I see.
APA> Some Facts:
APA> The package-index file contains
APA> (package-get-update-base-entry (quote ...))
APA> forms.
Yes.
APA> The file is not meant to be hand-edited:
APA> ;; Package Index file -- Do not edit manually.
APA> ;;;＠＠＠
APA> (package-get-update-base-entry (quote
APA> ...
True.
APA> Building a package adds a
APA> (package-get-update-base-entry (quote ...))
APA> form at the beginning of the package-index file in the staging area.
Not quite correct. If the entry doesn't already exist it will get
written to the top of the file. However, if it does exist, the old
entry is overwritten.
APA> The Problem:
APA> When a package-index file is read, the last
APA> (package-get-update-base-entry (quote ...))
APA> form for a certain package in that file supercedes earlier ones.
In the normal course of events there is only one entry per package.
So this doesn't happen.
APA> This means that the Package Release Engineer has to fiddle with the
APA> package-index file or remove the package-index file and rebuild all
APA> packages from scratch.
The only "fiddling" that I do with the package-index file is make sure
I have the right version of it in $STAGING.
Building all the packages from scratch for me is a *BIG PAIN* because
I would have to re-release each and every package each time I wanted
to release a single package. Because of the md5sums. Each time you
build a package you get a *different* md5sum, regardless of whether
anything has changed in the package.
APA> Two Questions:
APA> 1. Is it a valuable feature for the package-index file to contain
APA> multiple instances of the same package to provide a building history
APA> of packages? We don't seem to have the interfaces to make use of this
APA> feature today.
No. At least not until the package system evolves into something a
lot more intelligent than what we have now.
APA> 2. Shouldn't the latest addition to the package-index file supercede
APA> older definitions?
It does.
APA> Has anybody been working on these problems already?
Not me. I don't see a problem.
APA> I think item 2 really needs fixing.
It ain't broke.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|