Lyqyd, on 03 November 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:
- Credentials to push files to the data store would need to be baked in to packman, allowing anyone to easily recover them and use them maliciously.
- Development of packages without ComputerCraft installed is much more difficult.
- Storage of packages is centralized and must be managed by the owner of the data store.
- Exhaustive lists of past versions would need to be maintained and curated by someone, probably the owner of the data store.
I don't see very many advantages over the current system, honestly. I am quite happy with the current distributed system, as it allows package creators full control over their packages, with minimal centralized maintenance required.
I cannot disagree with almost anything you said here, I was probably being a little ambitious in hindsight... although supporting version would be fairly simple, even the way you have it now. All you would need is to allow for a sha/branch/tag argument. Checkout this github project I contributed to: https://github.com/e...ercraft-github. We simply allow for the argument to be passed and then change the url based on the desired tree. Version support would allow for me to write versions of my programs across different versions of CC... and it would be my burden as a package developer to explain how those versions are distributed.
H4X0RZ, on 03 November 2016 - 10:38 PM, said:
BTW, why is Packman using a custom format for the packlist etc. instead of using something more... supported, like serialized tables or JSON?
I too would like to hear the story behind this decision...