Re: New package system design draft
sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
Didier, I think there's a big misunderstanding here: Sure, I
disagree
with you. But that's mainly because our software installation setup
is different from yours, and the present scheme fits ours pretty well.
I'd understood this. You'd understood that it doesn't fit mine.
I don't think that it makes much of a difference which setup we
choose, which is why I believe we might just as well leave it
unchanged.
I beleive it makes a difference and that's why I'm arguing about this.
I won't change it. If you want to change it, go ahead. As long as
it
doesn't hurt anyone more than it does currently, I won't be in your way.
[...]
Please let me design the package system in such a way that it doesn't
need to care about these issues.
That's disapointing as well as worrying to hear that. It sounds like
you're closed to any discussion on this just because it is a problem (or a
feature) you just don't want to care about. But you're designing the whole
thing again and it's gonna have a very important impact on the future of
XEmacs. What I'm trying to do is only addressing a problem which I find
important *before* the new design is actually implemented, even if I'm not the
one who's implementing it. I don't feel like changing anything after you. I
feel like designing things the Right Way before hacking them.
Please note that I'm probably never going to use the package stuff as
it will be designed (appart from at home which is a single machine anyway).
I've got everything locally under my account on my site because I'm always up
to date. So I'm not arguing for my personal taste. I just want all problems
addressed. I can't understand how one can justify his choices in such an
important redesign process with arguments like "because the present scheme
fits our setup pretty well". Damn, you're working for everybody.
If you want granularity, put packages wherever your high-levels setup
tells
you to. If you get duplication that way but want sharing, use links. That's
precisely what they've been designed for.
Again, I'm sorry, but no way. This is like doing consciously something
wrong first, and then reparing the damage afterwards. I'm not ready to make
dozens of symlinks even if it's automatized in any fashion. Look, I don't
think you've provided any concrete argument against mine yet: say we have here
some share/ and lib/ directory. My share/ directory happens to be automounted
on all machines. Not yours, perhaps you don't even have one. Now please, tell
me /exactly/ how installing the packages, some part under share/, and some
other under lib/ would break your setup ? What would it break appart from your
personal taste ? I don't see how it could do any harm, but I see how it would
simplify the life of many people.
You know, I'm still open minded on this. We could find intermediate
solutions. For example, it would be ok with me to have all stuff under
/usr/local/xemacs, and then having /one/ share/ subdir under which all
packages would put their sharable stuff. Doing one symlink, once for all,
would be acceptable. But please, don't say things like "I won't change
it".
We're in the design phase.
--
/ / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
- / / - / / /_/ / ENST, INFRES C201.1 mailto:vernaļ¼ inf.enst.fr
/_/ / /_/ / /__ / 46 rue Barrault Tel. +33 (1) 45 81 73 46
75013 Paris, France Fax. +33 (1) 45 81 31 19