On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 03:19:08PM -0500, Tom Mueller (pkg-discuss) wrote:

> 1. Assuming that there is a set action with a hash code for the value,
> how does pkgrecv know that this value is to be interpreted as an
> identifier for a file?  Does the set action have to be tagged with some
> special tag?  If so, how is this different from adding a separate action?
> Adding a special tag to the set action would seem to be overloading the
> meaning of a set action.

Any receiving client will need to make the effort to understand some subset
of set actions.  True, we could introduce a new action, but I don't really
see the advantage.  This is always going to be a bit of a grab-bag area.

> 2. Again assuming that a set action is used for icons and other
> file-based package meta data, where would the meta data file (the icon
> for example) be cached in the image?

Wherever the image says it should go.

> (Bart did respond to this earlier by saying that the client could cache
> the data where ever it wants, but the problem with this is that different
> clients would not have a consistent way of accessing the cached data.)

If you're not using the same image module, then no, things aren't going to
work right.

> By following this logic of using a set action for an icon, the same
> argument could be made that we really did not need a license action
> either.  We could have just had:
> 
> set name=... value=... type=license ...

This is true, though as we'd anticipated, licenses are growing a fair
amount of structure to them, and cramming that all into a name/value pair
is a bit silly.

> File-based package meta data seems to be sufficiently different than
> either package attributes (set actions) or packaging license/copyright
> data (license actions) to warrant having a new action for this.

As far as I can tell, icons are still name/value pairs.  The fact that the
value is by reference is irrelevant.

Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to