On the maintainability of Ruby
Posted Jan 21, 2011 19:29 UTC (Fri) by JohnLenz
In reply to: On the maintainability of Ruby
Parent article: On the maintainability of Ruby
This has been tried before (I don't know about ruby or not, but other languages have similar tools) and as far as I know has failed every time. I don't know the details why they don't work and don't get finished ether, it would be something to investigate.
What I think should happen instead is each of the tools should support a common API that allows dpkg and rpm to control them. For example, each language's packaging tool should have a command "tool pkgdb listxml" or something, which outputs a standardized xml (or maybe yaml) file which dpkg and rpm can parse and then display in their guis and make part of their package database. Then each tool should have a standard set of commands like "tool pkgdb install ..." that also is designed to be run by dpkg and rpm, not a user. For example, outputs easily parsable status xml or json or yaml or something. If this was standardized across all language's tools, dpkg and rpm would not need to support each individual language, there could be a config file which has the language tool commands.
Then packages from the language db could show up in dpkg and rpm (and of course, in the gui's built around them). Each language package could show up prefixed by "pyegg-" for example. You could even then have packages in the distribution package repository depend on "pyegg-some-library" and when installing the package from the distro library, dpkg and rpm would download the package from the distro plus run the correct language tool command to get everything installed.
to post comments)