www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Package Managers: What about 0install?

reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
This has been hanging in the back of my mind and it's about dang time I 
bring it up:

The main reason we've been discussing the creation of a D package manager is 
because existing package managers are highly OS-specific. So what about 
0install?:

http://0install.net/

I haven't actually used it yet, but 0install has already gone through great 
pains to try to be cross-platform, distributed, safe, and overall 
well-designed. And it already exists. So maybe we're needlessly re-inventing 
the wheel here?

Would it make sense to just use 0install as D's standard package management 
tool? If not, would it be best to just adapt it to our needs?
Jul 19 2011
next sibling parent reply Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 19/07/2011 21:21, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 This has been hanging in the back of my mind and it's about dang time I
 bring it up:

 The main reason we've been discussing the creation of a D package manager is
 because existing package managers are highly OS-specific. So what about
 0install?:

 http://0install.net/

 I haven't actually used it yet, but 0install has already gone through great
 pains to try to be cross-platform, distributed, safe, and overall
 well-designed. And it already exists. So maybe we're needlessly re-inventing
 the wheel here?

 Would it make sense to just use 0install as D's standard package management
 tool? If not, would it be best to just adapt it to our needs?

I don't know if it's changed, but about a year or so ago I tried using something that required 0install... It didn't end well at all, I seem to recall I had to re-image my system eventually after a few hours of trying to get it working :/ -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Jul 19 2011
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Robert Clipsham" <robert octarineparrot.com> wrote in message 
news:j04u7t$nue$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 19/07/2011 21:21, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 This has been hanging in the back of my mind and it's about dang time I
 bring it up:

 The main reason we've been discussing the creation of a D package manager 
 is
 because existing package managers are highly OS-specific. So what about
 0install?:

 http://0install.net/

 I haven't actually used it yet, but 0install has already gone through 
 great
 pains to try to be cross-platform, distributed, safe, and overall
 well-designed. And it already exists. So maybe we're needlessly 
 re-inventing
 the wheel here?

 Would it make sense to just use 0install as D's standard package 
 management
 tool? If not, would it be best to just adapt it to our needs?

I don't know if it's changed, but about a year or so ago I tried using something that required 0install... It didn't end well at all, I seem to recall I had to re-image my system eventually after a few hours of trying to get it working :/

What OS was that? The Windows support is fairly new, so that might have still been in beta at that point.
Jul 19 2011
parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 19/07/2011 23:54, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 What OS was that? The Windows support is fairly new, so that might have
 still been in beta at that point.

Linux, don't remember what flavour. -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Jul 19 2011
prev sibling parent Thomas Leonard <talex5+d gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:45:36 +0100, Robert Clipsham wrote:

 On 19/07/2011 21:21, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 This has been hanging in the back of my mind and it's about dang time I
 bring it up:

 The main reason we've been discussing the creation of a D package
 manager is because existing package managers are highly OS-specific. So
 what about 0install?:

 http://0install.net/

 I haven't actually used it yet, but 0install has already gone through
 great pains to try to be cross-platform, distributed, safe, and overall
 well-designed. And it already exists. So maybe we're needlessly
 re-inventing the wheel here?

 Would it make sense to just use 0install as D's standard package
 management tool? If not, would it be best to just adapt it to our
 needs?

I don't know if it's changed, but about a year or so ago I tried using something that required 0install... It didn't end well at all, I seem to recall I had to re-image my system eventually after a few hours of trying to get it working :/

Hi Robert, Could you give more information about that (e.g. what program you were trying to install)? 0install does not run as root, so it should be impossible for it to cause that kind of problem. It should only write things in the following locations on Linux: ~/.config/0install.net/ ~/.cache/0install.net/ /var/cache/0install.net/ (if system-wide sharing is enabled) If you ever experience it doing anything else, please report the problem to the mailing list: http://0install.net/support.html#lists Though I am sure you would find that the problem was caused by something else. I have never heard of 0install causing any such problems. (and, yes, 0install should work well for D packages; I already used it succesfully for the Delight experimental derivative) -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/
Jul 23 2011
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-07-19 22:21, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 This has been hanging in the back of my mind and it's about dang time I
 bring it up:

 The main reason we've been discussing the creation of a D package manager is
 because existing package managers are highly OS-specific. So what about
 0install?:

 http://0install.net/

 I haven't actually used it yet, but 0install has already gone through great
 pains to try to be cross-platform, distributed, safe, and overall
 well-designed. And it already exists. So maybe we're needlessly re-inventing
 the wheel here?

 Would it make sense to just use 0install as D's standard package management
 tool? If not, would it be best to just adapt it to our needs?

I've heard of this before. I'll have to take a look at it. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Jul 19 2011