[gobolinux-users] New user question (start of many)

Michael Homer dufus at wotfun.com
Tue Nov 16 05:14:07 GMT 2004

Hisham Muhammad wrote:

>On Monday 15 November 2004 11:26, Andre Detsch wrote:
>>On Sunday 14 November 2004 23:04, Michael Homer wrote:
>>>>Btw, now both Compile and InstallPackage support url passing
>>>> Compile
>>>>http://www.gobolinux.org/recipe-store/Bison--1.875--recipe.tar.bz2 or
>>>> InstallPackage \
>>>>  http://kundor.org/gobo/packages/official/Bison--1.875--i686.tar.bz2
>>>The second of those will definitely be useful. I think the
>>>recipe-fetching needs to remain separate.
>>Additionally, if you want to avoid the use of FindPackage inside Compile,
>>you can pass directly the local recipe directory to it:
>>  Compile /Depot/Compile/LocalRecipes/Automake/1.9.3/
>I already factored this out into a Functions/FetchRecipe module in my 
>development tree. It now also accepts program URLs and forwards it to 
>MakeRecipe, which in turn attempts to forward it to NewVersion first. This is 
>nice for when the user forgets to check and runs MakeRecipe for a program 
>which already has an existing recipe. Today's snapshot is at 
>http://www.gobolinux.org/snapshots/ -- caveat emptor: it has known problems.
That's an excellent feature.

>>As soon as I have some time, I will add another file at the
>>packages/recipes repositories, that can be downloaded instead of
>>BinaryPackagesList or RecipesList. This file will contain information like
>>Package name, Versions, size of the packed and unpacked package (for binary
>>packages) and list of dependencies for each package/recipe. Not sure yet
>>where the file should be parsed, but maybe inside GetAvailable, with some
>>access interface for other scripts (but parsing it at other scripts too
>>will be always possible, of course).
>>I'm thinking in two options for the format of the file:
>>- XML
>>- or simply a something like one line per package/recipe:
>>PackageName Version UnpackedSize PackedSize [Dependency1,Dependency2....]
>>If you have any suggestions on this file, please let me know.
>My only concern is with added runtime dependencies. For example, if all this 
>were written in Perl, using XML would require Perl-XML-Parser, 
>Perl-XML-Writer and whatnot. If Python and Ruby feature XML parsers in their 
>standard distribution, this is not a problem. Otherwise, it would be nice to 
>have a format that can be easily parsed with a few lines of code. The 
>Resources/Dependencies file, of course, should stay in the current 
>human-friendlier-than-xml format.
Ruby at least includes REXML in its standard library, and I think Python 
has one too, so that shouldn't be such an issue. And realistically, if 
it's automatically generated Perl should be able to parse it like any 
text stream anyway if it became necessary.

What I'd really like to see at some point, although it's probably not 
practical at the moment, is a stronger dependencies/versioning system 
that accounts for situations like GTK+ (as in Portage 'slots') and a 
facility for listing compile-time dependencies that don't get picked up 
by the ldd-based script now.

More information about the Gobolinux-users mailing list