comp500, on 28 February 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:
Yeah, this is something I've been meaning to do since I changed to have multiple repositories possible. I finally got around to actually doing so today. The change breaks any existing installations' installed program databases, but should be a one-time problem. You can still use the short name of packages, and they'll be automatically resolved where possible. So `packman install lyqydos` automatically tries to install main/lyqydos, main/framebuffer and main/configuration. Please note that dependency strings will need to be updated in all packlists because of this, for any that aren't simply "none".
comp500, on 28 February 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:
WePackageItForYou (better name pending)
There are lots of great package managers in CC. The problem is that there are either not enough packages for that package manager, or normal people don't know how to use it.
This idea is here to solve the 'not enough packages' problem for packman.
All you have to do, as a script developer, is ask us to add your program/api/script/thing. We'll do all the rest.
Would these ideas be useful and should I start working on them (WPIFY at least, namespaces seems quite complicated).
I'm not personally interested in packaging other people's stuff for them, though I'm always happy to help someone learn how to get their stuff set up with packman. I find that simply doing it for them means they won't have the knowledge necessary to keep up on it, which just makes more work on my end! I'm not sure if there are any parts of the package creation process that would benefit from having automation tools, but there may be.
comp500, on 28 February 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:
also, another idea:
type = none
would be useful for OSes or easy install scripts with dependencies
it's used in apt somewhere - I've forgotten what it's called
This, I'm not sure about. Metapackages could be useful, I suppose. I'll have to think about this one some more.