Am 20.06.2011 10:52, schrieb Johannes Pfau: > Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> On 2011-06-19 21:59, Jose Armando Garcia wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg<d...@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 2011-06-19 19:02, Johannes Pfau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I still don't understand that completely. So does it list the files >>>>> which will be contained in the package later, or file dependencies >>>>> contained in other packages? >>>>> (I'm asking because I'm not familiar >>>>> with file-dependencies in package management systems. Most package >>>>> management systems make a package depend on other packages, but >>>>> not on the files in the packages) >>>> >>>> Ok, let me explain. When developing a package management system the >>>> first thing one has do decide is if the package should contain >>>> pre-built binaries/libraries, we can call these binary packages, or >>>> the necessary files to build the package when installing, we can >>>> call these source package (not to be confused with the source type >>>> you've mentioned below). As a third option, one could have a mixed >>>> package system containing both binary and source packages. Maybe >>>> even mixed packages could be possible. >>> >>> Why decide on "file" package? This only works with packages that can >>> be compiled. Think non-D source code packages and close source >>> packages. Even one of the most commonly known "file" package manager >>> (Gentoo's portage) allows for binary packages. >> >> I guess we could have a mixed system, with both source and binary >> packages. > > Definitely. Standardised source packages allow automated binary package > building, even for different architectures. Users should also be able > to make small changes to source packages and create their own binary > packages easily. Source packages only wouldn't work either, think of > users on embedded systems. Compiling everything on a machine with 16MB > ram and 200mhz isn't fun. Also binary packages are quite convenient. >
1. Will you develop or compile your own software (that uses software from the package manager) on the embedded system? I guess it's more common to develop the software on a PC or whatever and upload it to the embedded system. 2. Will an embedded system with such restricted resources have a x86 arch - or will it more likely be ARM or even something completely different? Should there be binaries available for any architecture (that's hard, because most developers probably only have x86/amd64)? If not, you'd have to compile yourself anyway. (And of course we need a working compiler for that architecture first) Cheers, - Daniel