While I do think SFS's should be in the PPM... at the same time I dont. Pets and SFSs are different beasts entirely. Not to complicate things... but I think perhaps SFS's should be in a seperate system. Not only is their use different, but their purpose was to help make puppy somewhat modular. Of course now that we have SFS load on the fly the line between pets and SFS is becoming blurred01micko wrote:However, interface is one thing, the underlying engine is the key and dependency checking is the bug bear IMO. This is more the packager's responsibility the way petget is structured at the moment. Maybe dir2pet needs to be more rigorous in checking dependencies and all of them listed in the dependency field.
And what about sfs management? Should it be part of PPM or separate?
I agree that the packager should list dependencies. I guess we need to come up with some agreed convention on how thats should be accomplished. Shouldnt be too hard to have an additional script set in dir2pet or whatever else to run ldd and then sed the output into a txt file (perhaps a .pd for pet dependency)
again... the social problem of getting everyone on board.