On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 17:12 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 16:35 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> >> Not sure I understand you. Is it the following?
> >
> > Yes - correct :-) is there something obviously silly about this ?
>
> No, sounds very reasonable to me. (For example, we can get rid of
> setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or equivalent in the build environment, then.)
Sure - and, I guess as a side-effect - the more we build up the install
set as we go, the more easily we can have unit tests that run nicely
against a partially working install.
The last sticking point for something like that is the monolithic
services.rdb build; I hate small scattered files - but, IMHO there is a
good argument for a very small, simple text file per module (or group of
modules) that expresses the service info in a simple and more efficient
fashion; and that (if necessary) can be catted together. Personally I
find this sort of thing rather amusing (in a black sort of a way):
$ regview services.rdb > services.txt # ...
$ ls -lh services.*
-r--r--r-- 1 michael users 2.4M 2008-08-28 10:30 services.rdb
-r--r--r-- 1 michael users 540K 2008-08-28 10:30 services.rdb.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 michael users 638K 2008-08-28 10:31 services.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 michael users 46K 2008-08-28 10:31 services.txt.gz
And of course - this is after the not-merged-up-stream size
optimisations we do in store/ - the up-stream wastage is far worse here.
It would be far nicer & smaller to have components register themselves
via a simple flat text file IMHO.
HTH,
Michael.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
