package manager? seriously?

package manager? seriously?

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

Ugh. I'm tired, I've been writing and doing stuff far too much this  
past week, and then people start bringing up "what's going to be  
9front's package manager" as if it were some kind of fait accompli,  
and instantly talking about "how are we going to have the package  
manager deal with config files?"

I think martian67 helped me organize my thoughts best when he said  
"packages enforce a certain structure on things." ... I don't if this  
will come across in text but what I really wanted to reply to that is  
"Oh! OH!! Ohhh yeeesss, let's ENFORCE STRUCTURE!!! STRUCTURE is  
GOOOOOOOD! Must have STRUCTURE!"

Plan 9's design is extremely good at making structure work in good,  
useful, non-limiting ways. What's the system which makes the most use  
of package management today? Gnu/Linux. What's the one system which  
employs structure in the very worst way possible throughout? Gnu/Linux.

Package managers are a big part of the disease. Dependency tracking  
helps create the longest and most brittle dependency chains. Config  
file management isn't management at all. Either you are managing the  
config files on your system or something else is, which way is it  
going to go?

Another big argument is package managers somehow stop things making a  
mess all over your system. Er, no, they provide a way for people to  
patch random shit to fit an arbitrary structure... Is "random shit"  
even remotely relevant in the context of 9front? For fuck's sake how  
much bullshit are we going to pile on this OS anyway? Without, you  
know, making it fit the OS first? Good grief people, THINK already.

Finally... "ohmigosh but the ONLY way you can possibly uninstall  
cleanly is with a package manager" argument, to which I will reply  
with two words: make uninstall. Plan 9 mkfiles  already have all the  
files they install listed, it shouldn't be hard to put an uninstall  
target in the files every mkfile sources. This isn't random bullshit  
made to work with crappy implementations of make, this is something  
for which we can make an uninstall target work already.

For those STILL in fucking lust with package managers, will you  
PLEASE stop thinking of 9front as a suitable platform for megalithic  
dinosaurian monstrosities?

Re: package manager? seriously?

[Taru Karttunen]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 02:16:43 +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Ugh. I'm tired, I've been writing and doing stuff far too much this  
> past week, and then people start bringing up "what's going to be  
> 9front's package manager" as if it were some kind of fait accompli,  
> and instantly talking about "how are we going to have the package  
> manager deal with config files?"

We already have a package manager by the name of contrib/install.

Do we want mercurial and hg as part of the base system?

If not we need a solution for installing (preferrably binary) versions
of them. Also a way of upgrading would be nice (re 9fans new hg version
thread). 

Do you think the current contrib way is any saner?

We *can* omit dependencies and config files totally from package
management.

All I am thinking of is:
+ copy files quickly over network
+ install avoiding clobbering local files
+ provide remove/upgrade
+ don't start with config file madness
+ don't do complex dependencies

ps. This started from #cat-v when I noted that some of my simple installer
code does work on Plan 9.

- Taru Karttunen

Re: package manager? seriously?

[Stanley Lieber]

> All I am thinking of is:
> + copy files quickly over network
> + install avoiding clobbering local files
> + provide remove/upgrade
> + don't start with config file madness
> + don't do complex dependencies

fgb has also expressed interesting in a replacement for contrib.

One of the problems with contrib is the reliance on /n/sources
as the central repository. sources is slow, it depends on the continued
goodwill of the Labs for its existence, and there is no provision for fetching
files from alternate locations.

OpenBSD's ports system may be a good source of inspiration.

-sl

Re: package manager? seriously?

[Jacob Todd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 101 bytes --]

There's also rminnichs' 9pm. Iirc it installs 'packages' under /packages and
binds them. Seems nice.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 124 bytes --]

Re: package manager? seriously?

[cinap_lenrek]

i completly agree with this!

i'm not a fan of package managers... compiling and installing native
stuff in plan9 is very easy... you untar a file somewhere, run mk
install
and its done... after this procedure, you know exactly what files
where
installed/changed and the process is transparent and not hidden in
replica logs and shell scripts...

but the image changes when you consider ape ports... these *have*
dependencies and unfortunatly are not self contained :-(

maybe we just add the stuff in the 9front distribution then?

--
cinap

On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Ethan Grammatikidis <eeke...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Ugh. I'm tired, I've been writing and doing stuff far too much this  
> past week, and then people start bringing up "what's going to be  
> 9front's package manager" as if it were some kind of fait accompli,  
> and instantly talking about "how are we going to have the package  
> manager deal with config files?"
>
> I think martian67 helped me organize my thoughts best when he said  
> "packages enforce a certain structure on things." ... I don't if this  
> will come across in text but what I really wanted to reply to that is  
> "Oh! OH!! Ohhh yeeesss, let's ENFORCE STRUCTURE!!! STRUCTURE is  
> GOOOOOOOD! Must have STRUCTURE!"
>
> Plan 9's design is extremely good at making structure work in good,  
> useful, non-limiting ways. What's the system which makes the most use  
> of package management today? Gnu/Linux. What's the one system which  
> employs structure in the very worst way possible throughout? Gnu/Linux.
>
> Package managers are a big part of the disease. Dependency tracking  
> helps create the longest and most brittle dependency chains. Config  
> file management isn't management at all. Either you are managing the  
> config files on your system or something else is, which way is it  
> going to go?
>
> Another big argument is package managers somehow stop things making a  
> mess all over your system. Er, no, they provide a way for people to  
> patch random shit to fit an arbitrary structure... Is "random shit"  
> even remotely relevant in the context of 9front? For fuck's sake how  
> much bullshit are we going to pile on this OS anyway? Without, you  
> know, making it fit the OS first? Good grief people, THINK already.
>
> Finally... "ohmigosh but the ONLY way you can possibly uninstall  
> cleanly is with a package manager" argument, to which I will reply  
> with two words: make uninstall. Plan 9 mkfiles  already have all the  
> files they install listed, it shouldn't be hard to put an uninstall  
> target in the files every mkfile sources. This isn't random bullshit  
> made to work with crappy implementations of make, this is something  
> for which we can make an uninstall target work already.
>
> For those STILL in fucking lust with package managers, will you  
> PLEASE stop thinking of 9front as a suitable platform for megalithic  
> dinosaurian monstrosities?

Re: package manager? seriously?

[Jacob Todd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3127 bytes --]

What stuff are you talking about? Ape ports? A package manager? It's unclear
from your post.
 On Apr 8, 2011 9:16 AM, "cinap_lenrek" <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
> i completly agree with this!
>
> i'm not a fan of package managers... compiling and installing native
> stuff in plan9 is very easy... you untar a file somewhere, run mk
> install
> and its done... after this procedure, you know exactly what files
> where
> installed/changed and the process is transparent and not hidden in
> replica logs and shell scripts...
>
> but the image changes when you consider ape ports... these *have*
> dependencies and unfortunatly are not self contained :-(
>
> maybe we just add the stuff in the 9front distribution then?
>
> --
> cinap
>
> On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Ethan Grammatikidis <eeke...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Ugh. I'm tired, I've been writing and doing stuff far too much this
>> past week, and then people start bringing up "what's going to be
>> 9front's package manager" as if it were some kind of fait accompli,
>> and instantly talking about "how are we going to have the package
>> manager deal with config files?"
>>
>> I think martian67 helped me organize my thoughts best when he said
>> "packages enforce a certain structure on things." ... I don't if this
>> will come across in text but what I really wanted to reply to that is
>> "Oh! OH!! Ohhh yeeesss, let's ENFORCE STRUCTURE!!! STRUCTURE is
>> GOOOOOOOD! Must have STRUCTURE!"
>>
>> Plan 9's design is extremely good at making structure work in good,
>> useful, non-limiting ways. What's the system which makes the most use
>> of package management today? Gnu/Linux. What's the one system which
>> employs structure in the very worst way possible throughout? Gnu/Linux.
>>
>> Package managers are a big part of the disease. Dependency tracking
>> helps create the longest and most brittle dependency chains. Config
>> file management isn't management at all. Either you are managing the
>> config files on your system or something else is, which way is it
>> going to go?
>>
>> Another big argument is package managers somehow stop things making a
>> mess all over your system. Er, no, they provide a way for people to
>> patch random shit to fit an arbitrary structure... Is "random shit"
>> even remotely relevant in the context of 9front? For fuck's sake how
>> much bullshit are we going to pile on this OS anyway? Without, you
>> know, making it fit the OS first? Good grief people, THINK already.
>>
>> Finally... "ohmigosh but the ONLY way you can possibly uninstall
>> cleanly is with a package manager" argument, to which I will reply
>> with two words: make uninstall. Plan 9 mkfiles  already have all the
>> files they install listed, it shouldn't be hard to put an uninstall
>> target in the files every mkfile sources. This isn't random bullshit
>> made to work with crappy implementations of make, this is something
>> for which we can make an uninstall target work already.
>>
>> For those STILL in fucking lust with package managers, will you
>> PLEASE stop thinking of 9front as a suitable platform for megalithic
>> dinosaurian monstrosities?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4021 bytes --]