[openbeos] Re: Package Manager Development Proposal

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:50:46 -0500

>> Since this is new design, I would like to have a bit more community
>> review than with the other stuff, but I agree with you, in general.
>> Why don't you put together a sketch of a design for us to look at?
>I would like to, but I won't have time for a few weeks.  The lack of
>time is why I haven't officially joined one of the OpenBeOS projects.

I understand that! :-)

>I want to say right now: I agree with you COMPLETELY when you said this
>project needs more community review than the other projects!  I truly
>believe a good or bad package manager can make the difference between a
>Perfect OS being accepted mainstream or staying a hobby for hobbyists.

Sure. Plus it is new software, compared to an established API.

>I do not believe I am qualified to put together the sketch designs,
>since I don't have any experience with the QNX manager, and don't have
>time to download and install another OS right now.

Me neither.

>Here is my suggestion:
>Have only the members of the community who have experience with at least
>FOUR of the following: (I only fit the top three)
>- Windows Update and Install/Uninstall programs
>- Software Valet
>- Linux package managers
>- QNX's package manager
>- Mac install/uninstall procedures
>Identify themselves and form a subcommittee and conduct a separate
>concentrated discussion.  Then have them submit sketch designs and specs
>to the general OBOS community in no more than two weeks.  (If not two
>weeks, then set another deadline.  I think a deadline would be important
>to keep things moving.)

Sounds reasonable. Anyone up for this? Even if there were a couple of people
with experience with all of these, total (someone with Win/Linux, someone with
QNX/Mac), that would be great!

>This proposal could then be discussed the general community, and after
>the specs are more finalized, appoint a small team to make a
>non-functional prototype.  The community could then discuss the
>prototype, and possibly revise the specs some more.  Then when the spec
>has been solidified again, then the devel team begins converting their
>prototype to the complete application.=20
>Any thoughts?

Other related posts: