On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:37:58AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Yes, meanwhile, the server providing B times out your connection,
> the whole install gets rolled back, and you have to start again
> from scratch. Not pretty.
Quite. Unless you ship all dependancies as part of the package in the sa
Paul Robinson wrote:
... if I want to install package A which requires B and C, B
requires D and E, and D requires F, your installer would go Start A -> I
need B -> Start B -> I need D -> Start D -> I need F -> Install F -> Install
D -> I need E -> Install E -> Install B -> Install C
In the ch
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:26:13PM -0400, The Anarcat wrote:
> It's right now to the point I wouldn't consider writing more code for
> libh, but I'd reuse the ideas in a smaller, plugin-based, swig-foobar
> rewrite.
I went back and re-read the notes on the website about libh's design
yesterday,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:11:26PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> That would seem to be the hard part. I presume you've
> looked at SUSE's YAST, Debian's APT, and other such tools?
*nods* - nice basis, but not... well... you know.
> What I have now works as follows:
> * Start reading the packag
Paul Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:42:20AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
* libtarfile works. ...
... the ability to look inside, if not packages,
at least tar files in memory ...
>> * Direct package extraction works. ...
In particular, I think that the work I'm doing now should
end the
On jeu jun 19, 2003 at 10:57:39 +0100, Paul Robinson wrote:
> > libh's dead, folks. It's been dead for a good while now. I was just
> > kicking it to make it look like we could tear something out of this
> > monster.
>
> It's not *that* bad is it? :-)
It's right now to the point I wouldn't consid
Bravo!
Now this is the talk I like to hear. :)
Sorry to have been so negative in my last emails, I see there is good
work going on. I have forgotten about you efforts, Tim.
Don't give up!
A.
On jeu jun 19, 2003 at 09:42:20 -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Paul Robinson wrote:
> > As to what I'm wr
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:42:20AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> When you get ready to do some work, let me know. I've
Will do. Just need to move, get DSL installed, and clear down some work and
I'm looking at a year of clear weekends and evenings. And this is biting me
up inside now... :-)
>
Paul Robinson wrote:
As to what I'm writing, well, I'm going to do the design in about four weeks
time, and anybody who is interested can take a look. An announcement will
probably go up on -hackers and -libh...
I want something that works. To be honest, just something that abstracts
/usr/p
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:40:13AM -0400, The Anarcat wrote:
> > > - Whether the installer is graphical or not is not the issue. Grey boxes on
> > > a blue background with yellow, red and black text is just plain ugly to a
> > > society that understands art and interior design. I know you're limit
Max Okumoto wrote:
I am still doing work on it... but my normal job has been
getting in the way for a while.
Max
I'm sorry Max. I guess I should have used a bit more diplomacy. But the
way I see it, libh was dead even before you got in, the same w
Well, yes.. I'm sorry too. But I feel that libh's pseudo-existence is
more a nuisance right now. The architecture of libh is a bit too big and
has this exact problem of putting its hands in too many pieces (as some
people have pointed out before). It's really hard to "get into" libh,
even for p
I am still doing work on it... but my normal job has been
getting in the way for a while.
Max
Jordan K Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry to hear you say that. It was probably the only effort (which
> attempted to solve the larger set of
Sorry to hear you say that. It was probably the only effort (which
attempted to solve the larger set of issues and not simply peck away at
the problem piecemeal) to ever have any code associated with it.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 08:40 AM, The Anarcat wrote:
libh's dead, folks. It's been
(or Yet Another Package Installer Bikeshed)
[libh CC'd, for the archives]
On mer jun 18, 2003 at 06:23:42 +0300, Samy Al Bahra wrote:
> > - Whether the installer is graphical or not is not the issue. Grey boxes on
> > a blue background with yellow, red and black text is just plain ugly to a
> > s
15 matches
Mail list logo
