On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Anthony G. Basile <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not understand why you oppose the standardization of VDB? >
I think it would make sense to take a step back. What is it that you're actually after here? You want to be able to determine information about packages that are installed. So, just determine what information is required and define an API for providing this information. I'd focus on software/script-friendliness first and foremost - then people can write as many wrappers around it as they like. How the package manager determines this information is not the problem. If the package manager wants to run ldd against all the binaries installed by the package and then recompile every ebuild in the tree to see if there is a match, that is its own problem. Just focus on the interface, and trust those implementing the package manager to do it in a competent fashion. If they don't then users probably won't use the package manager if they care about those features. Or maybe users care more about a few kilobytes of indexes and would prefer that the package manager not store information which it could re-derive, and that is perfectly fine as well. And yes, I realize we're talking about how to accomplish something before we've decided whether to accomplish it. I think that for any reasonable decision to be made about the latter it doesn't hurt to have at least some sense of what the former is going to look like, though not necessarily the detail of a full specification. It wouldn't hurt to point out use cases too. This is a GLEP, so nobody has to do anything unless the Council approves it... -- Rich
