On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:39:04AM -0600, John Meinel wrote: > Josh England wrote: > > >On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 11:01 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
[...] > >Of course. However, I believe that full OS revision control is a > >legitimate need that Arch could be ideally suited for. > > > >I'm pretty sure all the changes I'd like can be handled with more > >(optional) metadata. I'm not against some scripting glue, but to do > >this I still need to be able to store/retrieve some metadata in the > >archive. Heh. The metadata discussion again :-) > If you are asking for user-defined meta-data, how is this different from > creating a user-defined text file listing the metadata that you are > keeping track of [...] Well, it ain't different -- and it is. If Arch provides a standardized repository for (generic) file metadata, it's gently forcing applications to agree on one mechanism. We'd (hopefully) have a standard interface towards the hook scripts doing the actual dirty job (mknod, chown, what not). Plus the chances of having an agreement on namespaces for more or less widespread use cases (Unix ownerships, NT EAs, you name it) would seem better. Plus the user is more confident not to mess things up by relying on Arch's transactional savvy. You come very close in your later mumblings (which I always read with joy), about putting this stuff somewhere in or near .arch-inventory or .arch-ids. The question remains: what kind of metadata to support. A little voice in me keeps saying ``this seems the perfect use case for xl��. Hm. Just imagine an .arch-metadata, full of file (and directory) metadata, expressed in xl, and a standardized protocol for passing that to (platform-specific, user-specific, context sensitive) hook scripts. Regards -- tom�s
pgpwLMmc5NHlx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
