scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Scsh-hackers] packaging proposal design issues

To: Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org>
Subject: Re: [Scsh-hackers] packaging proposal design issues
From: Michael Sperber <sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Tue Dec 2 00:51:02 2003
Cc: scsh-hackers <scsh-hackers@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
>>>>> "AC" == Anthony Carrico <acarrico@memebeam.org> writes:

AC> 1. NEGATIVE -- everything is not in one hierarchy. 

Well, as long as it doesn't all have to be under /usr or /usr/local,
it still can be.

AC> I think this was an original design goal, and it is lost. This
AC> breaks Michel's idea for uninstallation (delete a single
AC> subtree). If this goal can't be sacrificed, then one way to achive
AC> it would be to severely restrict the proposal to deal with scheme
AC> source code only. My personal view is that this design goal is not
AC> practical in the Unix context.

After having installed 300+ software packages in a heterogeneous Unix
environment (with the help of two scsh scripts) where every software
package is in its own hierarchy, I can say with confidence that it's
very practical.  (I'd say it's the *only* way to achieve practicality
in a distributed, heterogeneous environment, actually.)

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>