Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Please drop the ^main^ thing Abdulaziz Ghuloum (25 Sep 2009 00:21 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 18:23 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 19:37 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 19:42 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 19:40 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 19:47 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Abdulaziz Ghuloum (26 Sep 2009 08:37 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Shiro Kawai (25 Sep 2009 19:59 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Andreas Rottmann (25 Sep 2009 20:33 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 22:04 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (26 Sep 2009 01:16 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (25 Sep 2009 21:02 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Shiro Kawai (25 Sep 2009 22:07 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (26 Sep 2009 01:07 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Shiro Kawai (26 Sep 2009 02:16 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Abdulaziz Ghuloum (26 Sep 2009 06:10 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Shiro Kawai (26 Sep 2009 07:59 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Abdulaziz Ghuloum (26 Sep 2009 08:14 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Derick Eddington (27 Sep 2009 03:26 UTC)
Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Shiro Kawai (27 Sep 2009 04:59 UTC)
Re: [OT] English Derick Eddington (27 Sep 2009 05:29 UTC)

Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing Abdulaziz Ghuloum 26 Sep 2009 08:14 UTC

On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Shiro Kawai wrote:

> Yes.  But the discussion shifted to assume there are enough
> demand that packages may be just untarred directly under
> a directory in the search path.

If there's such demand, I won't object.  After all, I'm just
a single user.

> Nah, the discussion is like this.  Suppose there are two
> packages.
>
> Sample package 1:
>  Your package have sources for (acme foo),
>  (acme foo helper1), (acme foo helper1 auxutil) and README.
> Sample package 2:
>  Your package have single source for (acme bar) and README.
>
> Then files may be expanded to:
>
> "Everything under a single directory" policy:
>
>  package 1:
>     acme/foo/main.sls
>     acme/foo/helper1.sls
>     acme/foo/helper1/auxutil.sls
>     acme/foo/README
>
>  package 2:
>     acme/bar/main.sls
>     acme/bar/README
>
> Not much here to confuse, right?

Right.

>> I feel stronger towards the second, leaving it to Andreas's
>> package manager to deal with the first.[
>
> Yeah, "we'll have smart package manager that deal with mess"
> is one solution.  But I do understand Derick's concern;
> relying on extra software component, which isn't even built,
> doesn't seem a good practice.

I agree.

> "Untar under a search path"
> will be guaranteed to work with minimum requirement.

It's not just tar.  If you pick a package from an RCS, you
pretty much have to assume that the package will be inside
a directory and that it will not litter the directory one
level up.

So, maybe I just dislike the carets after all.  Let's just
say that I'm undecided for now, and sorry if I'm confusing
everybody with my swinging positions.

Aziz,,,