GSoC idea for the binary issue (yet again)

[Jeff Johnson]

On Mar 29, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Anders F Björklund wrote:

> 
> I mean something else with the word "package manager", that's all...
> 
> 
> * I think that the Portfile should be converted to metadata
> * I think that the scripts should be converted to DSL atoms
> * I think that the metadata and content need two containers
> * I think that signatures should happen on uncompressed data
> 
> None of that needs to happen instantly, especially not during
> a student assignment... It makes sense to have it happen in 3
> "stages", even. First deploy the binary archives, then extend
> those "enough" to work with a smaller subset of the runtime.
> 
> But as far as theory goes, I think those are worthy end goals.
> 

I'll try to take this to the next level:

	+PORTFILE as a de facto container on file system for a recipe in 2011 is silly.

One needs to map package metadata into all the usual markups which are
	JSON
	XML
	YAML
and its literally no harder than choosing an encoding and some fiddle ups
with quoting and escaping so that metadata is transportable.

Do all of the markups, don't obsess trying to choose The One True Markup. JMHO ...

What should NOT be done is to fuss about what the name space SHOULD look
like. All package managers are already divergent, one more namespace
helps nothing and hurst nothing. Package managers (like smart etc) will
map whatever is available into all the usual places anyways, just try
to make the import/export as easy as possible *EVEN IF THE MARKUP CONTAINS TCL OR SHELL*

hth

73 de Jeff