also sprach Eugene Gorodinsky <[email protected]> [2009.11.29.2101 +0100]: > > To remove redundancy, you'd have to remove the metadata from the > > binary packages. That's surely doable, but would also mean that > > a single .deb file would become useless: you could not obtain meta > > data from it, and in particular, dpkg could not enforce policy and > > prevent installation of packages with unresolved dependencies. > > > Yes, a single deb file would indeed become useless, but if the package > has non-executable files it's usually split into two packages so it's > kind of useless to have just one anyway. This is why I don't think the > approach of having metainformation stored per-package is any good. > Plus, if you want to let users be able to simply download using a > browser and double-click a package to install it, you can create an > "additional" format which would basically be a .tar that contains all > the needed packages. Installing it would be the same as extracting all > files into a temporary directory and then feeding the manifest to the > package manager. It's also not cpu-intensive to create these tar > archives on the fly, which would save storage space on the > server-side.
Where does the package manager turn to obtain dependencies? -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "i wish there was a knob on the tv to turn up the intelligence. there's a knob called 'brightness', but it doesn't seem to work." -- gallagher spamtraps: [email protected]
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
_______________________________________________ Distributions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
