Article discussing Go, could well be D

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-06-19 21:59, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg<doob at me.com>  wrote:
>> On 2011-06-19 19:02, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>>
>>> I still don't understand that completely. So does it list the files
>>> which will be contained in the package later, or file dependencies
>>> contained in other packages?
>>> (I'm asking because I'm not familiar
>>> with file-dependencies in package management systems. Most package
>>> management systems make a package depend on other packages, but not on
>>> the files in the packages)
>>
>> Ok, let me explain. When developing a package management system the first
>> thing one has do decide is if the package should contain pre-built
>> binaries/libraries, we can call these binary packages, or the necessary
>> files to build the package when installing, we can call these source package
>> (not to be confused with the source type you've mentioned below). As a third
>> option, one could have a mixed package system containing both binary and
>> source packages. Maybe even mixed packages could be possible.
>
> Why decide on "file" package? This only works with packages that can
> be compiled. Think non-D source code packages and close source
> packages. Even one of the most commonly known "file" package manager
> (Gentoo's portage) allows for binary packages.

I guess we could have a mixed system, with both source and binary packages.

> Another example is caching. Many software development organization
> keep internal library/program repository that have been clear by the
> organization for many reasons (e.g. licensing, security, support,
> etc). Our packaging solution should work such an environment.
>
> -Jose


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg