|Our story so far||Eric Merritt||2/27/12 9:13 AM|
Parts of the Packaging Machine
* Remote Repositories
#### The Remote Repositories
* The repository will be a repository of human readable metadata,
##### Organizations and namespacing
All metadata will be organized around 'Organization' names. So the
The organization must, of course, be flattened out by the time the
#### The Local Index
The local index is a searchable, queryable cache of all Remote
#### The Local Repository
As an option, the tools may make use of a local repository that serves
#### Erlang Consumable App Dir
When a set of dependencies are solved they are resolved down to a
* Convention over Configuration
No tool should hardcode a path. All paths must have both sane defaults
**erlp**: serves the function of interacting with the remote repos,
**erls**: the dependency solver. Given a set of constraints and one or
**erlf**: this may be integrated with erlp (probably will be). Given a
**erlb**: The builder, given dependencies and a project dir will build
**erla**: The assembler. Given resources above and build code
**erld**: This serves to package up a release for distribution. In any
|Re: Our story so far||hyperthunk||2/27/12 11:01 AM|
I'm 100% on board with this.
What name for the overarching tool set? Given a name, say (for the sake of example) we call it 'aardvark', then can we simply name the individual parts 'aardvark'-<toolname>, so we get ...
or something to that effect?
In addition to what you've stated thus far, we've also got
- each tool has two APIs
|Re: Our story so far||Eric Merritt||2/27/12 11:38 AM|
At Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:01:34 +0000,
sure though I would want to type less on the command line.
|Re: Our story so far||Chris Duesing||2/29/12 12:13 PM|
one comment, inline below:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Eric B Merritt <ericbm...@gmail.com> wrote:At Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:01:34 +0000,
I see you have stuck with elra, erlb, etc. on the wiki, and I would like to cast a second vote for aardvark (or something easier to type). unless each tool has a memorable name that is based on its purpose, it is going to be extremely difficult for people to communicate about. succinctness on the command line should not be the driving factor in naming (and tab completion should keep it to 3-4 keystrokes anyway).
|Re: Our story so far||Eric Merritt||2/29/12 12:18 PM|
>> At Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:01:34 +0000,
Those are still just placeholders. We haven't really talked about
|Re: Our story so far||Eric Merritt||2/29/12 12:36 PM|
I have changed the names to be generic titles for now. Btw, the page
is editable by anyone so feel free to make changes.
|Re: Our story so far||hyperthunk||2/29/12 12:55 PM|
Cool, thanks. I'm just starting to review now.
|Re: Our story so far||hyperthunk||2/29/12 1:44 PM|
Have added several questions and made some minor amendments. Please review them when you get a chance.
On 29 Feb 2012, at 20:36, Eric Merritt wrote:
|Re: Our story so far||hyperthunk||2/29/12 1:46 PM|
Sorry, just to mention. I made some changes to distinguish between repository (storage) and index (metadata storage). I hope this makes sense to you - I found it confusing talking about a remote repository (which is the index) and a local repository which stores the artefacts.