Re: About RPackage
Posted by
Henrik Sperre Johansen on
Mar 03, 2011; 2:04pm
URL: https://forum.world.st/About-RPackage-tp3330650p3333396.html
On Mar 3, 2011, at 2:01 52PM, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
This was the decisions that two of us (I mean me and you) took :).
Categories are mapped one-to-one to RPackages. The reason is that this is the simplest path to replace categories in the system.
Doru I'm afraid that it will not work because it means that suddenly people will have to change all the configurationOf.
We should come up with a smooth transition phase (now this is true that if we could get rid of categories it would be good)
PackageInfo and RPackage cannot coexist?
It's been awhile since I looked at RPacakge, but...
Not if you want a clean transition, you either use one, or the other.
Trying to maintain the package structure in two systems at a time can only lead to trouble, especially when they do not have the same constraints. (RPackage is not tied/derived from to category classification like PackageInfo is)
In any case, it will not be a problem for me to update all my config with this new schema.
Alexandre
I'm not sure what you mean by configs.
The contents of a Monticello package is simply a collection of definitions, and will stay the same.
The browser will probably need updating though, since extensions no longer necessarily have to be in a *packagename category .
Loading a Monticello package stored from an RPackage-based system into a system still using PackageInfo might cause false dirties , for the same reason.
As long as there is no package browser as standard (like there is in VW), and people still specify extensions by using * categories in a system browser, that's not likely to be a big issue though. RPackage does make it much easier to create a performant package browser though :)
Cheers,
Henry