Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
en:docs:distribution [2013/04/20 18:58] – valerius | en:docs:distribution [2016/02/04 01:04] (current) – [Package management] valerius | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ==== osFree distribution (draft I) ==== | + | ===== osFree distribution (draft I) ===== |
- | osFree distribution | + | osFree distribution |
- | | + | ==== Package management ==== |
- | * Also, a tool like eCoShop | + | |
+ | === WarpIN === | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Package sources frontend === | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Also, a tool like eCoMarket | ||
* it must handle different package sources, like | * it must handle different package sources, like | ||
* files in the current directory | * files in the current directory | ||
* special directory layouts (on the current machine, or on remote http or ftp server), like diskette images with bundles (as used by IBM OS/2 distributions so, the installer will be capable to install old IBM OS/2 distributions as well) | * special directory layouts (on the current machine, or on remote http or ftp server), like diskette images with bundles (as used by IBM OS/2 distributions so, the installer will be capable to install old IBM OS/2 distributions as well) | ||
- | * other directory layouts, like APT or RPM repositories | + | * other directory layouts, like APT or YUM repositories |
* different file transport protocols support, like ftp, http, etc, via plugins | * different file transport protocols support, like ftp, http, etc, via plugins | ||
- | * maybe, support for handling the different packages formats, other than WPI, i.e.: | + | * maybe, support for handling the different packages formats, other than WPI, because Netlabs, for example, prefer RPM's, so, it would be good to have support for them too, as they seem to be logical for ports from UNIX (but they are not suited well for native OS/2 applications). So, the support for the following formats would be desirable: |
* plain ZIP's with metainfo and installation scripts included (like it was in UnixOS/ | * plain ZIP's with metainfo and installation scripts included (like it was in UnixOS/ | ||
* RPM - for software ported from UNIX. | * RPM - for software ported from UNIX. | ||
* pack/ | * pack/ | ||
* the package source frontend will handle different package types via special plugins (or backends), and invoke different tools when installing packages (invoke WIC, UNZIP, UNPACK or RPM) | * the package source frontend will handle different package types via special plugins (or backends), and invoke different tools when installing packages (invoke WIC, UNZIP, UNPACK or RPM) | ||
+ | * maybe, even, the possibility to create the decentralised network of package repositories is needed -- this will allow to use any nearest mirror, or use another mirror if the main mirror is down. Even we could try to create the repositories network on Peer-to-Peer basis ;) (Use Bittorrent or any other protocol via a separate plugin,like the one for ftp/http) | ||
+ | |||
+ | === WarpIN enhancements === | ||
+ | |||
* The enhancements to WarpIN should include: | * The enhancements to WarpIN should include: | ||
* " | * " | ||
- | * Support for simultaneously existing versions of different packages with libraries, which are needed for different applications | + | * Support for simultaneously existing versions of different packages with libraries, which are needed for different applications |
* Maybe, " | * Maybe, " | ||
* Coexistence of several package trees, which are updated separately, and do not influence other trees -- some analogies with source code repositories with branches | * Coexistence of several package trees, which are updated separately, and do not influence other trees -- some analogies with source code repositories with branches | ||
* Support for separating and merging the branches, rollback of packages to an older (but stable) version | * Support for separating and merging the branches, rollback of packages to an older (but stable) version | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== The installer ==== | ||
+ | |||
* response-file-driven installer: | * response-file-driven installer: | ||
- response file can be created manually | - response file can be created manually | ||
- response file can be generated by UI (VIO or PM-based) | - response file can be generated by UI (VIO or PM-based) | ||
+ | |||
* so, installer must be divided into four separate parts: | * so, installer must be divided into four separate parts: | ||
- UI for choosing user options and generating the response file interactively, | - UI for choosing user options and generating the response file interactively, |