[Rpm-maint] Re: [lsb-discuss] RFC: Berlin Packaging API
robert.schweikert at mathworks.com
Thu Feb 28 15:29:57 UTC 2008
Her are my Questions/Comments:
While we cannot prevent people from shooting themselves in the foot or
hacking those walking extensions off alltogether I am wondering if we
can come up with a way to narrow the scope of this API. As described in
the proposal we do not want people to look for every possible package
under the sun. After all the idea here is that we are dealing with an
LSB certified client that only needs to check for the LSB version.
Further we need to be able to check for vendor packages where the vendor
is not the distribution provider. Thus, a way to restrict the API to the
"ligitemate" uses would probably be a good idea.
I would prefer manifest_t to be a FILE* pointing to an XML file,
something I discussed with Seth briefly in Berlin and at last years LF
collaboration summit. We'll define the schema using xsd or dtd format
and publish it. ISVs can then generate the manifest file automatically.
Note here that we probably want to find a name other than manifest file
to avoid creating confusion for people who think of the relatively
recently introduced manifest files on windoze. The windoze manifest
files are an attempt to avoid dll hell.
The API will need to validate the XML install manifest to be valid
against the schema. That means we need some kind of XML validation
engine to be part of the LSB.
I think this should take a second argument to allow the client to
specify whether or not the files should be removed.
bool unregister_package(const char *package_name, bool remove_files)
I also added these to the discussion page on the wiki.
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Many of you may remember, way back when, getting together (or hearing
> about a get-together) to talk about issues with ISV software
> installation and packaging. This would have been in December 2006, in
> Berlin, Germany.
> The one proposal from that meeting we all agreed on was that we needed a
> cross-package-system API for third-party installers to tell the package
> manager about the software they install. A summary of that proposal can
> be found here:
> Since that time, there have been a few meetings reaffirming the need for
> this API, but little actual work.
> To try and move this proposal forward, I've created a wiki page at the
> Linux Foundation site:
> This page now contains a straw-man API proposal. My intent is to
> implement this proposal for RPM and dpkg once it passes muster, and
> propose the API for inclusion into RPM and dpkg.
> We'd love for all interested parties to provide feedback, either on the
> wiki or via E-mail.
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(robert.schweikert at mathworks.com) LINUX
The MathWorks Inc.
Phone : 508-647-2042
More information about the Rpm-maint