Alternative format for the configuration file

[Otavio Salvador]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=

|| On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:00:10 +0200
|| Free Ekanayaka <free@agnula.org> wrote: 

fe> Practically speaking what I'd do would simple be:

fe> 1) download the Packages.gz and Sources.gz file from whatever APT
fe>    repository I want to use

After it, the mirror of the backend with the needed packages is doen
and a pool for it is populated.

fe> 2) generate my custom Packages.gz and Source.gz according to the
fe>    rules (filters/include/exclude/resolv_dep_using) defined in 
fe>    the config file

fe> 3) populate the pool/ fetching the relevant packages, and possibly
fe>    deleting the old ones

No. This uses the previous packages of merged backends and populate
with hard-links it.

fe> I think  such  approach grants   you a  great degree   of freedom when
fe> filtering/merging repositories together.

No.

We provide, currently:

You got all packges from sid and then, on merge, you use only
base-packages.

>>> Let me add that  in this case the  configuration file is not a  simple
>>> flat list of variables, that defines paths, options, switches etc, but
>>> it's rather similar  to a tiny programming language,  used to build up
>>> your CDD using wide APT pools as raw bricks. 
>>> 
>>> [rest of explanation snipped]

NLB> OK, Free, let me square with you.  If you want me to sit down and throw 
NLB> away the last 3 weeks or so of work on the new configuration format, 
NLB> you're going to have to give me a better reason than "this other format is 
NLB> prettier".  The current (newly rewritten) config format isn't the best 
NLB> possible one, I agree, but it's very flexible, very easy to read, and does 
NLB> everything we need out of it.

NLB> If you were to show me a grave problem with the current format, then I'd 
NLB> consider throwing it away and doing something different.  As it is, I 
NLB> don't see a good reason to rewrite this code.  If YOU want to sit down and 
NLB> rewrite it, rather than just telling me to do it, that's great, and that's 
NLB> what Free Software is all about, and we'll talk about it when you've got 
NLB> patches ready that pass the test suite. :-D

NLB> As it is, I'd rather get to work on the actual functionality of this 
NLB> program, instead of quibbling about details of the (IMO, rather 
NLB> superficial) config format it uses.

fe> I perfectly understand your point, and I do agree with it. However if like
fe> the alternate format too, I can find some time to write the changes to the
fe> Config.py module myself.

I currently, doesn't found a good reason to do it now. I think we have
other more important things to do and this, if needed, can be done later.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFBB9ZNLqiZQEml+FURAlfuAJoCwFyHK3q2Wn38/yPD9gV0MFK6GQCdGfGS
KMBMH7KpsUGi/tG7CyeE1D8=
=8lW4
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--