[Pharo-project] Gofer vs Installer
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez
miguel.coba at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 13:14:31 EDT 2009
El lun, 21-09-2009 a las 18:04 +0200, Lukas Renggli escribió:
> > This is something that I can't understand. Is this supposed to be a
> > package management system per se, a la Metacello, aptitude, yum??
> > Isn't just a installer of MC packages but tries to manage the MC
> > database of packages in a way that is clean and *atomic*?
> No, as it says on the first line, it is a tool to perform basic
> Monticello operations on multiple packages. It is based on scripts
> that we wrote to handle the 70+ Seaside 3.0 packages, as well as code
> we wrote for Flair, a system that has similar goals than Metacello,
> but is now discontinued in favor of Metacello. Maybe Metacello will
> use Gofer as its loader.
> > So, there will be a registry of gofer installed operations so that can
> > be utilized after the install operation (maybe months later)?
> No. Unless you store them somewhere. The class-side of Gofer has some
> examples for common set of packages.
> > Or will just be for trying to install some group of packages and if some
> > error happens immediatly revert?
> No. It uses the normal tools available through Monticello, but
> provides a convenient interface. Furthermore it runs some additional
> code to keep the image in a clean state. For example it ensures that
> every working copy has an repository assigned, that repositories
> pointing to the same physical location are of the same instance, that
> unused repositories get removed again, that categories are properly
> ordered, that unload operations do not leave empty categories and
> protocols, etc.
I always tough that monticello have complete control over the packages
installed and unloaded from an image. I also assumed that it cleaned its
mess after each operation. It is good to know this. But, a question,
shouldn't this be part of Monticello. Or monticello fixed so to not
leave dirty images behind it. Well that is just a comment. I know that
there are alread a dozen monticello versions. :)
> > Can you relate the scenarios showing how gofer is intended to use,
> > because until now (maybe my narrow perspective) the examples shown can
> > be done also with ScriptLoader and Installer.
> Maybe the loading part can be performed by these tools (but then again
> they mess up with the repositories), but not really the other
> > Other thing, I tried to convert my image install script but I can't
> > finish because I install packages from monticello configurations (magma
> > 1.0r42) and from my local directory repository. Neither of those options
> > can be handled by gofer (as far as I can see). Of course this can be
> > corrected, it is just to integrate the correct MC installer classes.
> Gofer is designed for Monticello only.
> > That reminds me other thing, Installer can handle monticello
> > configurations, is the corresponding way of loading the packages using
> > gofer to list each package in the mcm file in a gofer script? So mcm
> > will not used or it is just that there have no been time to add those
> > capability to gofer?
> Yeah, a Gofer specification is very similar to a Monticello
> Configuration. In fact when you use specific versions it is basically
> the same, but then again it messes up with the repositories and
> categories, something that drives me mad for years already :-)
More information about the Pharo-dev