Package distribution hassles - a proposal.

[Max TenEyck Woodbury]

John H Terpstra wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> 
>>> Looking forward to the next step. How shall we proceed?
>>
>> I take it that the process and inputs looks correct to you.
> 
> You might want to read the Maximum RPM book before you get too far into
> this project. You will find it at www.rpm.org.

I got about half way through it. The style is a bit icky. I'll pick it up 
again. The section on the library will be needed, but I haven't gotten to
it yet. Might be a few other pearls in the goop that I haven't found yet.

It is quite clear that RPM is specialized for building many packages in
the same basic environment. After all that was what the people who were
writing it wanted to do. It's not optimized for the orthogonal problem;
it doesn't make it easy to build the same package in a lot of different
environments. But some of the problems are the same coming at it from
either direction, so it is usable.

> Show us the stuff, we are all behind you. There are no rules - so you can
> create your own solution. Let's look at what you come up with and then we
> can look at how to improve it.

Yep. The only rule is it has to work for the 'customer'. Faking it isn't
making it. Other than that, I'll do it my way, but it's more fun if there
are good people helping and they can only help if I listen. I've also 
learned that I can't think of everything so I really don't mind people
looking over my shoulder while I work. I hope you don't mind if I run my 
mouth a little so you can follow what I'm trying to do. 

mtew