On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Fredrik Holmqvist < fredrik.holmqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We try to embrace innovation, not hinder it. So avoiding using modern > features because some OS'es are lacking is not going to be well > recieved. If they are lacking they can either choose to emulate the > feature or implement it. We want software that take full advantage of > every part of Haiku OS where we can. > This, I can understand. It sounds reasonable, then, to use file metadata to store package information with. The whole thing is very hard to comment on, but to me it feels like a > clunky app you'd find in Linux or such systems. A simple and elegant > solution, which don't assume things on behalf of the user is probably > more how I'd want it. > I might admit that I might have focused too much on *modularity* (by essentially letting a package extend the installation system any way it wants via hooks) and *lightweightedness* (by making the installation process as bare-bone as possible) in my proposal , but not that I went in the other direction. I must therefore differ to this claim. As I said, this system is so simple that it could be implemented as a shell script, and it was inspired by mobile package management systems in that no persistence is needed for it to work (packages don't even have to be installed to work; the user just drops a package in a folder and can suddenly use the application that was in the package, integrated into the desktop with an application menu entry and everything, and all installations are volatile so that an application is uninstalled when its files are removed because e.g. an USB stick was removed). But, I would of course like to hear how it could become even *more* end-user friendly! Might someone be interested in seeing a mock implementation (no pun intended), written in BASH? I might create one if the disbelief in the systems simplicity is great enough. :-) Cheers, David Flemström